Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Scottish Economy

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss developments in the Scottish economy

Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I have frequent contacts with Scottish Enterprise and representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on matters concerning the Scottish economy. I last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise last Friday.

Mr. Salmond: Does the Secretary of State accept that the removal of headquarters and decision making is deeply damaging to Scottish economic interests? What representations has he personally made to British Gas about the location of its new headquarters divisions? Is he now prepared to condemn its decision to locate all five south of the border and seek to reverse it or will he follow the lead of his Prime Minister, wash his hands of the situation and do absolutely nothing while another Scottish work force is taken to the cleaners by another British company?

Mr. Lang: While it is always desirable to have company decision making in Scotland—and I am glad to see that 25,000 more companies have been created in Scotland since the Government came to power—it is inevitable that, from time to time, companies, for their own commercial reasons, will rearrange their decision-making plans. I have written to the chairman of British Gas about his recent announcement. I particularly seek clarification of his proposals to devolve operational activities. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is shortly to meet British Gas and I understand that the chairman has invited all Scottish Members to meet him this afternoon.

Ms Squire: Does the Secretary of State recognise the vital importance of defence-related jobs to Scotland's

economy and especially to that of Fife? If so, will he declare his support for the campaign to keep open Rosyth naval base and protect the 5,000 jobs associated with it because employment is threatened in a region which already has the highest overall unemployment rate in Scotland? Will the Secretary of State publicly declare his support for that campaign?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady will know my past record of support for the naval base and also the naval dockyard at Rosyth. I cannot help noticing that Labour is always calling for cuts in defence spending and is always at the forefront of calls for the abandonment of the nuclear deterrent, but complains when the consequences of defence cuts flow through. The important thing is to maintain economic employment levels in Fife and to generate new economic activity to sustain increased prosperity.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Who does my right hon. Friend think best speaks for Scotland—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who in Glasgow on Friday was proud to speak about a diverse and dynamic Scottish economy which in many respects is a world beater, or the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) who glories in knocking Scottish achievements and revels in taking every opportunity in the House and elsewhere to talk Scotland down?

Mr. Lang: I suspect that my hon. Friend shares my view that the better spokesman for Scotland in that respect is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I wish that Labour would not seek to talk Scotland down because that damages Scotland's economic prospects. Why do the Opposition not recognise that Scotland's share of UK manufactured exports is now at an all-time high and 24 per cent. per head higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that Scottish exports are growing in all sectors of the economy? There is a great deal of good news in Scotland and it would help Scottish interests if Opposition Members would draw attention to it from time to time.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Did the Secretary of State write to or advise the Prime Minister on the statistics contained in the Prime Minister's speech, as the picture that he painted was not one of the Scotland that I know?

Mr. Lang: I am not accountable for the hon. Gentleman's ignorance. I draw his attention to the fact that unemployment in Scotland, although still too high, is now lower than unemployment in England, Wales or Northern Ireland—for the first time in more than 70 years. Unemployment has fallen in five of the past six months and is 11,500 lower than it was a decade ago. In the last decade, 162,000 new jobs have been created in Scotland.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State accept that he has nothing to boast about when he says that unemployment in Scotland is lower, as it is still approaching 250,000 and only marginally less bad? As for young people out of work and those out of work for six months or more, will the Secretary of State comment on the reports from the unemployment unit showing the poor performance of people in statutory training schemes in Scottish local enterprise company areas? When he talks to the chairman of Scottish Enterprise, will he suggest that


one of the criteria for training performance might be the ability to place people in jobs after training rather than simply obtaining paper qualifications?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman talks about those who have been unemployed for six months or more. He will know that two thirds of those who lose their jobs are back in employment after six months and off the unemployment register. In regard to the relative performance of enterprise companies, the hon. Gentleman will know better than most that there are bound to be differences in costs and results, depending on geography, demography, the nature of training courses and the level of qualifications being sought. Scotland has a good record on many of those aspects.

Dr. Reid: Does the Secretary of State recall how he and his colleagues cheered when it was announced that the Germans had taken over the Rover group? Did they cheer last night when it was announced that French firm Valourec had taken over the last remaining steel plant in my constituency? Does he not feel some slight shame that in the 14 years during which he and his Government have presided over the Scottish economy the once thriving and vast steel industry has been reduced to absolutely zero in Motherwell, North? There is no British-owned steel industry in my constituency. Does he feel no shame? Could he at least give the work force some guarantee that their employment will be secure and that the North sea will continue to be provided with steel tubes made in Britain by a British firm, or will he cop out on that as well?

Mr. Lang: If there is a case for shame, it is among the Opposition. The steel industry has suffered in recent years because it was starved of new investment when it was nationalised, when the commanding heights of the Scottish economy were taken over and control moved south to London. The lack of investment in nationalised steel companies led to their uncompetitiveness and demise. If the takeover by a French company leads to new investment, that is more likely than nationalisation would ever have been to secure jobs for the future.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the Secretary of State admit that the 250,000 unemployed Scots, who were joined last Thursday by another 14,000, must have been absolutely gobsmacked if they were listening to the Prime Minister's speech on Friday when he said:
Employment prospects are vastly better than they were 15 years ago"?
Being intelligent people, would they not find the Prime Minister's use of figures both self-serving and slippery when he claimed there were 160,000 more jobs in Scotland than there were 10 years ago? They will be wise enough to realise that the Government came to power 15 years ago, not 10 years ago, and that far from creating 160,000 jobs in those 15 years, the Government have destroyed 12,000 jobs all over Scotland. How can Ministers have the cheek to add statistical fraud to the human and economic misery that they have caused in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman may not like the statistics, but they happen to be correct. The civilian work force in Scotland has increased over the past 10 years by 162,000—that is more than 16,000 jobs a year on average, 1,300 a month or almost 350 a week. Let me cite some locations where new jobs have been created as a result of announcements in the past four months. They include

Cumbernauld, Glasgow, Coatbridge, Bathgate, Livingston, Glenrothes, East Kilbride, Larkhall, Dundee, Aberdeen, Dunfermline, Edinburgh, Hamilton, Cumnock, Port Glasgow, Kinross, Irvine, Elgin and Bothwell. There are lots of jobs being created in Scotland. It is a pity that the Labour party will not acknowledge that.

Forestry Commission Land

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many access agreements have been reached with private purchasers of Forestry Commission land in each of the past five years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): Access agreements are not made between the Forestry Commission and private purchasers.

Mrs. Ewing: Why not?

Sir Hector Monro: They could not be guaranteed in perpetuity.

Mr. Kynoch: Under the current local government structure, regions are obliged to draw up indicative forestry strategies. Will that be a requirement of the new unitary authorities? If so, will there be co-operation and co-ordination between them?

Sir Hector Monro: Yes. I expect close co-operation between the new unitary authorities and the forest authorities and Forest Enterprise—or whatever is in place when the new councils come into being in 1996. Co-operation will be the watchword—particularly in terms of access, which is most important.

Rail and Car Transport

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the likely growth in rail and private car transport in the south-east of Scotland over the next 20 years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend and I have regard to a wide range of information when forming transport policy for Scotland. That includes national forecasts for rail and road use produced by British Rail and the Department of Transport. The Scottish Office conducts more detailed studies in connection with individual transport projects.

Mr. Darling: How can the Government justify a second road bridge at Queensferry, which will pour hundreds of thousands of unnecessary cars and lorries into Edinburgh city centre and cause environmental damage, when that will result in tolls increasing to between £3 and £6 per crossing, which is the experience with other private sector controlled bridges? Will the Government agree to a wide-ranging public inquiry so that alternative modes of transport, such as the underused Forth rail bridge, can be examined, or has the Minister been captured by the road builders in the Scottish Office and by construction companies, some of which have made generous donations to the Conservative party?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is assuming that a decision has been made, but it has not. Traffic levels are steadily increasing. The national road


traffic forecast shows that over the next 20 years traffic levels will rise 40 to 60 per cent. If we did nothing, we would rightly be blamed. Were the project to proceed, the toll would depend on the outcome of any future competition to design, build, finance and operate any new bridge and roads. It would be subject to close scrutiny, and a maximum level would be set by the Government. Suggestions of a toll of up to £5 are wholly unrealistic and bear no relation to reality.
The hon. Gentleman wrote to me about a planning inquiry, and I am replying today. The normal statutory procedures require rigorous assessment of development proposals and provide for a local public inquiry if necessary. The kind of inquiry for which the hon. Gentleman asks has never been held in Scotland. We believe that the normal statutory processes should proceed.

Mr. Hood: There is great concern in Scotland about coach transport, especially at this time. Today, the funeral of Francis Scorgie took place in the village of Carnwath in my constituency. His family and the whole constituency is mourning the death of that 15-year-old boy, who left his home last Thursday to travel with 34 other school friends on the school bus to Biggar high school. Within minutes, tragically, he received fatal injuries when the bus collided head-on with an articulated lorry. My constituents, the family of that young boy and the people of Scotland are calling for Government action. It is known beyond reasonable doubt that a seat belt would have saved the life of Francis Scorgie and avoided serious injury to the other children. When will the Government act?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments in sending deepest sympathy to the family concerned. I agree that the safety of pupils must be a matter of top priority. Their safety is the statutory responsibility of the education authorities concerned. The Department of Transport is undertaking a review of the fitting of seat belts in all buses and coaches, and will report in due course. The Scottish Office is contributing all the evidence that it has from Scotland. We are looking at that matter actively just now, in co-operation with our colleagues at the Department of Transport, which has lead responsibility.

Training

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Scottish Enterprise to discuss training.

Mr. Lang: I last discussed training with the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise on 2 November last year.

Mr. Ross: When will we hear from the Secretary of State the distinctive Scottish circumstances that suggest to him that he should opt out of the proposed national development plan launched by the Secretary of State for Employment for 150,000 apprenticeships? Does the Secretary of State think that Scotland is so different that our young people do not deserve apprenticeships, or that our manufacturing base is so strong that we do not need young people in apprentice training—just in case the economy ever picks up?

Mr. Lang: Labour Members are usually busy telling me how different Scotland is and how important it is that

it should have its own arrangements. I am keeping closely in touch with the development of the apprenticeship scheme at the Department of Employment for use south of the border. One of the reasons why we are not automatically and immediately linking ourselves with it is that we are already achieving 30 per cent. Scottish vocational qualification level 3, which is the target that has been set for the apprenticeship scheme. We are already ahead of what they are aiming at south of the border in that regard. Nevertheless, we will learn from the scheme as it is developed in the south. If it has application in Scotland, I am sure that it will be applied there.

Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the comments that he has made on the gaining of qualification under the training schemes, the new skill seekers scheme that is on offer presents a great opportunity for Scottish youth and allows youths to choose the training of their need with the employer of their choice? That will benefit them greatly in future years.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will welcome the fact that youth training credits should be applicable throughout Scotland by 1996.

Mr. Beggs: When the Secretary of State last met Scottish Enterprise, did he discuss its successful initiative into Vietnam, which identified a number of viable hydro-electric projects which would have provided training and employment in Scotland and in my constituency? Will he discuss with the Overseas Development Administration and his colleague in that Department why there has been no response and why there is ongoing delay, and when the funding will be provided to make those projects become viable?

Mr. Lang: That was not on the agenda for our discussion when we met in November. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will in due course hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Galloway: Will the Secretary of State ask the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, Mr. Crawford Beveridge, what he was doing last weekend at a Conservative party fund-raising dinner at an hotel in my constituency—the Focus on Scotland dinner which Sir Michael Hirst, the chairman of the Conservative party, tells Malcolm Rifkind is immensely important and raises around 30 per cent. of its income? Why were a whole host of heads and high officials of Government quangos there, including a reported sighting of Mr. Lawrence Peterken, the expensively transferred health official about whom the House has heard much in recent months? Is it healthy for individuals who owe their livelihoods to Government patronage to be seated around tables raising funds at an immensely important Conservative party fund-raising dinner?

Mr. Lang: There were almost 900 guests at that dinner. A further 200 would have liked to come but were unable to get seats. That is a reflection of the strength of support for the Government among the business community in Scotland. If Mr. Crawford Beveridge was brought as a guest of one of those business men, that is entirely a matter for him. So far as I am concerned, he and any other guests brought to that dinner were equally welcome. I only wish


that some Opposition Members had been invited by businesses in their community. They might have learnt quite a lot.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Secretary of State tell the House when he expects to meet Professor Donald Mackay to discuss the skills crisis in Scotland, because, despite the ludicrous answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), 83 per cent. of trainees on employment training in Scotland leave without a qualification and 76 per cent. of young Scots after being on youth training leave without a qualification? Surely the Secretary of State will not continue to be complacent about the future of so many young Scots. Scottish Enterprise is letting him down. He is involved in a widespread sell-out of the Scottish unemployed. It is a national scandal and he should make a statement about it today.

Mr. Lang: Again, the Opposition are trying to talk Scotland down by presenting selective statistics and facts. The hon. Gentleman might have chosen to draw attention to the success of adult training—a scheme that is no more expensive in Scotland than in England and has produced a higher success rate in Scotland. He might also have pointed out that 30 per cent. achieve Scottish vocational qualification level 3 and above—much higher levels than are achieved in England—and that 80 per cent. aim for level 2. He might have mentioned that more youth and adult trainees than ever before are gaining recognised qualifications and that a larger proportion of adult trainees go into jobs, further education or further training.
The fact is that the quality of training in Scotland is improving considerably.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to visit the north-east of Scotland to discuss local government spending.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend plans to visit the north-east of Scotland again before long. Local government spending will probably be among the matters discussed.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister recognise that when his right hon. Friend visits Aberdeen he will meet citizens who are full of anger, outrage and downright disgust at the £287,000 early retirement package given to the disgraced chief executive who, although guilty of dishonesty and deception, faced no disciplinary proceedings from the council? What can be done to ensure that the affair is investigated fully and independently, and that those citizens secure the result that they want—no more wasting of public money by councillors who have failed in their public duty?

Mr. Stewart: A reading of the press will probably lead to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman's remarks reflect widespread public opinion. I must tell him, however, that the district council is an independent corporate body. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office have no powers to intervene in such decisions. The council must, of course, be accountable to taxpayers, official bodies and the law.

Mr. John Marshall: As a former member of Aberdeen town council, may I support the plea of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) against Aberdeen district council's complete misuse of public funds? I am sure that it would not have happened when I was a member of the council, or when the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was a member.

Mr. Stewart: The consensus seems to be that Aberdeen's affairs were in better hands when my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were on the council.
I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House have reflected the widespread public anger that is felt, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can act only within statutes passed by the House. The council is an independent statutory body.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister agree that we should send our good wishes to Tom Paine, the leader of the council—who had a stroke two days ago—and wish him a speedy return to full health?
Does the Minister also agree that hindsight is a marvellous aid to decision making—the only trouble being that it is not available when it is needed? Will he at least make one point clear—which I wish to do, although I personally do not agree with the final decision? Will he make it clear that that decision was made in good faith, not because of any lack of accountability or responsibility, and that public funds were not misused in the way that both the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) have disgracefully sought to imply?

Mr. Stewart: I think that the whole House will want to send best wishes to Councillor Paine for a speedy recovery.
The decision was, of course, made by the council. I merely expressed agreement with hon. Members' view that widespread public concern has been felt.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he employed in determining the size of the proposed new local authorities.

Mr. Stewart: The Government took into account a wide range of factors in determining the boundaries for the new councils. Those were set out in detail in the consultation paper "Shaping the New Councils".

Mr. Chisholm: Does the Minister realise that no one in Scotland wants local government reorganisation—apart from some Tories in the gerrymandered areas—and that it will become even more unpopular once people realise the costs and the effect on services? Will he now confirm that as the proposed number of new authorities increases, the already substantial costs will also increase? How can the several small authorities that he has proposed possibly deliver the range of services that is necessary? Is not it true that he does not care, so long as he can create a few flagship Tory authorities to spearhead his real agenda, which is the handing over of service delivery to private contractors?

Mr. Stewart: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that every political party in Scotland at one time or another has been committed to a unitary system of local


government, for good and understandable reasons. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate the Government on the changes that we announced in relation to Lothian, after listening to all-party public opinion. I have received congratulatory letters from West Lothian and from Midlothian, areas near the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
As for the size of authorities, if it is the hon. Gentleman's view that small authorities cannot deliver services, it is astonishing that two out of only three votes on detailed boundaries that the Opposition forced in Committee were to make fairly small authorities smaller.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that, in places where the proposed new local government boundaries cut across school catchment areas, parents and local education authorities will not have to bear the burden of extra transport or any other costs if parents choose to send their children to schools on the other side of a boundary? If the Minister cannot give us such an assurance, will he do the decent thing and withdraw the Bill, which is one of the most blatant pieces of political gerrymandering in the history of Scottish local government?

Mr. Stewart: I have offered to meet the hon. Member and his parliamentary colleagues in Central region to consider the options that would best serve the interests of his constituents, but obviously he does not want to take up that offer on behalf of his constituents.
As for the school question, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education and housing has given assurances to the Committee and will table an amendment on those matters.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Front-Bench Members divided the Standing Committee only three times when we were discussing boundaries in Scotland and that once we got down to the detailed scrutiny of the boundaries they could not sustain or justify the gerrymandering charge that they have unfairly bandied about during the past six months? Much of what the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) say on television bears little resemblance to reality.

Mr. Stewart: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Opposition Front-Bench Members endeavoured to stifle debate on boundaries. The number of recommendations that were made by Labour-led district councils in Scotland was extremely interesting—

Madam Speaker: Order. It was remiss of me not to stop the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). We have procedures here whereby we do not refer to what is taking place in Committee. That Committee work stands on its own until it is reported to the House. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who is now at the Dispatch Box can compose a proper answer without referring to the Committee.

Mr. Stewart: The Government's developing policy will continue to reflect the need for a sensible unitary system of local government in Scotland and we shall continue to take into account the sensible proposals that we are receiving from many local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. George Robertson: The House will understand why the Minister with responsibility for local government

was put up to answer local government questions rather than the Secretary of State, who wants to stay well away from this gerrymandering subject. However, this is the Minister who has started to admit that the creation of the new additional authorities will increase costs and eliminate any savings from this unwanted, unnecessary and completely gerrymandering council carve-up. Will he now tell the whole truth about what it will cost the people of Scotland? This ideological fiasco, whose credibility is declining with every day that it is discussed, will mean yet another financial imposition on Scottish household bills. On top of the £10 a week that the people of Scotland will have to pay for economic incompetence and broken promises on taxation, they will have to pay a heavy gerrymandering surtax for the butchery of local government for which they never asked and which they certainly do not want.

Mr. Stewart: That is either the 25th or the 26th time that I have heard the hon. Gentleman pronounce such nonsense. The costs and savings have been clearly identified. If he does not believe me, I urge him to read the submissions of Labour-led councils up and down the land about the savings and efficiencies that they believe a unitary structure of local government in Scotland will deliver to their voters. Members of Labour's Front Bench are simply not representing Labour district councils in Scotland in these matters.

Mrs. Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional quangos and joint boards will be created as a result of the proposed reforms of Scottish local government.

Mr. Stewart: The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill proposes the creation of a maximum of seven new non-departmental public bodies, including a staff commission for the transitional period. We expect to establish four new joint boards for police and fire services.

Mrs. Adams: Should not the Minister be hanging his head in shame? Is not it an admission that the Government do not believe in democracy in Scotland that they have to go for appointed boards? Will he at least tell us what the criteria for the appointments will be? Will he agree to set up a register listing all members of quangos, their interests and political affiliations so that the people of Scotland might at least know who these unelected people are who are increasingly running their lives?

Mr. Stewart: The lists of people who are members of non-departmental public bodies are well known, as they are all published. We appreciate the hon. Lady's disappointment at not being selected at the last minute for the Committee considering the Bill, due to the traditional sexism of the Labour Whips Office. I assure her that under this Government the number of non-departmental public bodies in Scotland has not increased but has fallen from 240 to 160.

Mr. Dalyell: If, as the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), costs have been carefully identified—I use his own words—he will be able to tell us, will he not, to the nearest £10 million, what is the latest cost estimate from the Scottish Office on local government reform?

Mr. Stewart: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman has tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking precisely that and it will be answered today.

Mr. McFall: Will the Minister ensure that any future quangos will not follow the lead of Dumbartonshire Enterprise, which, I have just discovered, has given a grant of £60,000 to the Helensburgh-based Royal Northern yacht club to stone clean its premises? He will know that it is the headquarters of the exclusive Mudhook yacht club, whose 40 rich and famous members include royalty and even Cabinet Ministers. Is he aware that, in an area of high unemployment, not one job was created as a result of the grant? Does he agree that this or any future quango should not provide substantial grants to organisations to finance projects that offer no economic benefits and which could easily and properly be funded by members of that exclusive rich man's club?

Mr. Stewart: I believe that Dumbartonshire Enterprise spends taxpayers' money cost-effectively. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk to someone with great experience of quangos, there is the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who was a member of the Police Advisory Board, of the board of the Scottish Development Agency and of the Scottish tourist board, at a time when his only obvious qualification for those important positions was his membership of the executive of the Scottish Labour party.

Homelessness

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources he will make available to ensure that homeless people in Scotland are able to receive the full range of health care available under the NHS.

Mr. Stewart: Health boards are resourced to purchase health care services for their resident population including those who are homeless.

Mr. Watson: Despite that response, the Minister must be aware that homeless people in Scotland, as in other parts of Britain, face major and often insurmountable obstacles in getting access to the national health service, largely because of the unwillingness of general practitioners, who are the main source of referral for most NHS services, to accept them on to their registers. Does he accept the view of Dr. Harry Burns, the director of public health in Glasgow, who said that providing better health care for homeless people must be a priority for 1994? Statistics for London show that tuberculosis is already beginning to raise its ugly head again among homeless people, including those in hostels. Will he tell us, and homeless people in Scotland, clearly what he is prepared to do to ensure that homeless does not continue to mean healthless?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I know Dr. Harry Burns and have the highest regard for him. In May 1992, the Chief Medical Officer asked health boards to carry out a health care needs assessment of their homeless and residential population. Last October, the CMO asked health boards to develop their services for the homeless and boards have already been instructed to undertake a whole range of specific actions to help in that area.

Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend and his colleagues are discussing resources and health care facilities, do they bear carefully in mind the necessity, when a cottage hospital such as Meigle has been resourced from its birth with an adequate endowment that would keep it going for ever, of taking that fact carefully into account when considering the information presented before such a hospital is closed?

Mr. Stewart: The whole House will know of my hon. Friend's campaign on Meigle hospital. As always, he has been a most meticulous and determined constituency Member of Parliament. As the House also knows, the Secretary of State himself replied to the Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend initiated on Meigle hospital and I know that my right hon. Friend, as he said at the time, listened most carefully to what my hon. Friend said.

Mrs. Fyfe: First, may I put on record the Labour party's continuing support for cottage hospitals?
On the original question, the Minister must know that bad housing creates bad health and the health of those who do not even have a roof over their heads is even more at risk. Does he agree that it is a scandal that in 1992–93 more than 45,000 households—almost 1,000 every week—applied to local authorities as homeless and that many of the people concerned will not be registered with a doctor? Will the Minister therefore reject for Scotland the proposal from the Department of the Environment to tell local authorities that they need not house those in the greatest need—the people who are literally on the streets—but may provide short-term accommodation only? Will he promise today that the impact on the health of the homeless will lead him and the health and housing Ministers in the Scottish Office to reject out of hand any proposals to weaken homelessness legislation?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Lady will know, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing has allocated an extra £27 million for programmes specifically designed to deal with the problem of homelessness. With regard to the hon. Lady's general point about legislation, I can say that we envisage a consultation paper on possible reforms of homelessness provision, including legislation. That paper will be issued in the spring.

Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive

Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future funding of Strathclyde passenger transport executive, in the context of Scottish local government reorganisation.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Under our proposals for local government reform, the Strathclyde passenger transport executive will be funded by grants made by the Strathclyde passenger transport authority.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister understand—I doubt it —that the Strathclyde passenger transport executive, which is a highly successful operation, is now threatened by the twin nonsenses of rail privatisation and local government reorganisation? Does he realise that these destabilise investment and threaten vastly increased fares? Does he recognise that a leasing deal for rolling stock ordered by Strathclyde PTE has been thrown into limbo by the fact that nobody who will be involved in financing the deal knows where, in a few years'time, Strathclyde PTE


will get the money to pay for the rolling stock? Does he recognise also that the access charges announced last week by Railtrack have been passed on, in huge measure, to Strathclyde PTE? Ministers have guaranteed that Strathclyde PTE's additional charges will be covered for one year. Can the Minister confirm that the guarantee is for one year only? What will happen after that? If the money to meet these charges does not come from the Government, will it come from the local government taxpayer or from the passenger?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the costs concerned will be taken fully into account. I also confirm that, together with Councillor Malcolm Waugh and the Minister for Public Transport, I shall have a meeting on Monday with Lombard, to which the hon. Member has referred. Leasing and funding are matters for Strathclyde regional council, but I make it clear that the Scottish Office strongly supports Strathclyde's efforts to conclude a rolling stock leasing deal. Obviously I shall take a very close interest in all aspects of the negotiations. Indeed, I have already attended one meeting with the Minister. I shall let the hon. Gentleman know the outcome.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson). The Strathclyde passenger transport executive—in particular, Councillor Malcolm Waugh—has done an excellent job building up both rail and road transportation for the public, especially those who cannot afford cars. I should like to put on the record the fact that Strathclyde PTE opened two small railway stations in my constituency—at Cowlairs and High Possil Park—and that it would be a great shame if either of those was endangered as a result of our losing out on the passenger transport service.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I confirm that the local government reform proposals should present no impediment whatever to the satisfactory conclusion of these matters. I shall look in particular into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. With regard to boundaries, the remit and responsibilities of Strathclyde PTE will not change as a result of local government restructuring. The new Strathclyde PTA will, of course, replace Strathclyde regional council as the passenger transport authority.

Mr. David Marshall: What changes will have to be made to the travel concession scheme in Strathclyde as a result of reorganisation?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I confirm that there is no reason why local government reorganisation should adversely affect the availability of travel concessions. The hon. Gentleman's theme is incorrect.

Funding (Highland Region)

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the allocation of funds for Highland region.

Mr. Lang: Subject to the House approving the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1994, Highland regional council will receive aggregate external finance totalling just under £212 million next year.

Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State will have heard his colleague—the grey-haired and worried Minister beside him—refer to the fact that there will be a great increase in the volume of road traffic. What, then, is the logic of cutting by £5.7 million Highland's grant aid for road maintenance? At a time when the Highland region has been defined by the European Community as a deprived area worthy of regional structural funds, what is the sense in cutting grants generally?

Mr. Lang: In other circumstances, I might have described the hon. Gentleman's question as hair-raising.
The allocation of resources for roads is, of course, a matter for the regional council. The capping principles that I have enunciated for next year will enable it, like most other regional councils, to increase spending by up to 1.75 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should not forget the substantial resources amounting to £240 million over a period of time which will be available to the highlands and islands under objective 1. Some of that could be used for roads.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State accept that the structural and economic disadvantages of the west highlands and the outer islands are among the most deep-seated and intractable in the whole United Kingdom and that that played a large part in the award of objective 1 funding for the highlands and islands? Does he agree that that is a powerful argument for siting the committee to administer the funds in the west highlands rather than the east highlands, because that is where the problems are greatest? Will he make a decision soon about the location of that committee?

Mr. Lang: Those are not entirely matters for me, but the hon. Gentleman's case will have been noted.

Tourist Boards

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his conclusions on the review of the area tourist boards in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish tourist board has submitted a recommendation on a new area tourist board structure to my right hon. Friend. This is being considered carefully and an announcement will be made in due course.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that the seven or eight-board structure that has officially been recommended by the Scottish tourist board to the Minister represents fewer than half the number of area boards recommended in the Scottish tourist board's detailed staff consultation with the industry? Does he agree that it is necessary for boards such as the borders and the islands tourist boards to retain a geographical distinctiveness so that they can market tourism effectively? What assurances can he give the House that that local identity will not be sacrificed in the review and amalgamation of tourist boards that he is currently considering?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am currently considering the representations of the hon. Gentleman, who came to see me with a deputation on the subject. I can tell him that one of the clearest messages that emerged from the tourism review was that there should be a more


co-ordinated framework of area tourist boards for the whole of Scotland and that, at 31, there were far too many. Although the Scottish tourist board has encouraged voluntary amalgamations, that approach simply has not worked. We shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point with the utmost care before conclusions are reached, undoubtedly within a few weeks.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware of the important part that the Greater Glasgow tourist board has played in the past few years in selling events such as the garden festival, Glasgow City of Culture and the international jazz festival? Is he aware that if the proposals of the Scottish tourist board were put into force, the expertise in selling local amenities, attractions and services, which is an essential part of the area tourist board, would be lost?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. We regard the review as a matter of supreme importance because tourism is now the largest employer in Scotland. It is not the largest employer south of the border, but it is in Scotland. We are absolutely determined to get the review right. We are considering the matter deliberately thoroughly, but it will take a little time to come to informed decisions.

Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend is considering this difficult and complex matter, will he bear it in mind that Perthshire tourist board—which, by any standards, is one of the more successful, if not the most successful, board in Scotland—is deeply worried that it could be merged with areas that have not been so successful and would be much more difficult to market?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest and of the points that have been made in his constituency, but I repeat to the House that the pressure for change has come from the tourism industry itself through its responses to the tourism review, and it is the tourist trade and the area tourist boards which have said that there are at present far too many area tourist boards. That is why some action must be taken.

Training Companies

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make public the funding paid to training companies for each training place that they provide.

Mr. Lang: Responsibility for the delivery of training in Scotland is a matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their networks of local enterprise companies. The negotiation and agreement of funding paid to training companies is a contractual matter between the local enterprise companies and the training provider.

Mr. Worthington: Is not it shocking that we cannot know the price that is paid for the training of our young people and of the unemployed? Has the Secretary of State seen the evidence being given by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in which it contrasts the fact that local authorities are told to do everything in public with the fact that local enterprise companies are told to everything in private? Is not it disgraceful that we should be unable to

protect our young people by having information about what is paid to private companies to train them or to exploit them?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the resources going into training are substantially greater than under the last Labour Government. As regards the publication of the specific details paid under contracts to individual training providers, that is a matter for the local enterprise company. They are not prevented from publishing the details, but it is a commercial matter. Local enterprise companies are private sector companies and each is accountable to Scottish Enterprise for the fulfilment of its obligations and delivery of training. So there is proper accountability and efficient, commercial use of resources.

Mr. McKelvey: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Highlands and Islands Enterprise on its announcement that its books and the books of its LECs will be open to the public?

Mr. Lang: Yes, and I would welcome it from others.

Local Government Accountability

Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to strengthen the accountability of local government in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: The proposals contained in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill to establish a single-tier structure of local authorities will significantly strengthen the accountability of local government in Scotland.

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend will already have heard this afternoon of the deep unrest in the north-east over the so-called early retirement of the chief executive of Aberdeen city council. May I add the deep concern of my constituents about the situation? In the light of that, and of the allegations about Monklands district council and other Labour-controlled councils, will my hon. Friend give some reassurance to my constituents that, in the transfer to unitary authorities, staffing matters will be dealt with in a proper and professional manner?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. My hon. Friend raises an important point in relation to council tax payers, the public interest and the interests of employees themselves. The transitional arrangements for staff have been discussed. We are setting up a staff advisory committee and, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, a staff commission. I am glad to have the agreement of a number of Opposition Members that my right hon. Friend's announcement of the chairman of that commission, Mr. Robert Peggie, is widely and warmly welcomed.

Mr. McAllion: I can follow how the quangos created by local government reform will be accountable to the Secretary of State for Scotland. What I cannot understand is how the Secretary of State for Scotland is accountable to the Scottish people, particularly since three out of four of them at the last election voted to remove him from the office that he now holds. Does the Minister agree that, as long as the Secretary of State for Scotland holds his high office in defiance of the democratically expressed wishes of the Scottish people, no aspect of government in Scotland


is truly accountable, there is no Scottish democracy and, in every sense of the word, Scottish people are already living in an unelected state?

Mr. Stewart: That probably confirms that it is only a matter of time before the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) joins the Scottish National party, where I am sure he will be warmly welcomed. Ours is a United Kingdom Parliament and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is fully accountable to the House, as is every other Minister in the United Kingdom Parliament.

Homelessness

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to end the duty of Scottish local authorities to provide permanent housing to all homeless people.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Office will circulate a consultation paper in the spring on the possible reform of homelessness policy. The paper will

raise issues similar to those addressed in the consultation paper for England which was distributed on 20 January. The consultation in Scotland will also take account of the findings of recent research into the 1991 code of guidance on homelessness.

Sir David Steel: The consultation paper issued by the Department in England proposes to repeal a section of the law that places on local authorities a duty to provide permanent homes for homeless people. May we have an assurance that no such proposal will appear in the Scottish consultation paper?

Lord Douglas-Hamilton: What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the contents of the consultation paper have not yet been finalised; they will take into account the results of the research. We expect the paper to ask questions about all the main issues of the current homelessness legislation—I refer to questions, not proposals, as it will be a genuine consultation exercise. The present duty applies only to those who are unintentionally homeless and in priority need.

Points of Order

Mr. George Robertson: on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek advice in relation to the way in which Scottish Question Time was conducted this afternoon. At the beginning, the Secretary of State announced that he was to link Questions 1 and 7. I had been notified that that was his intention and phoned his private office before lunch to say that the Opposition would find that objectionable.
Question 1 asks when the Secretary of State
last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise".
Question 7 asks when the Secretary of State
next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress".
Both questions relate to discussions on the Scottish economy, but involve two radically different organisations that are likely, despite their common concern about the way the Government run the Scottish economy, to have two different views on the remedy.
The Secretary of State answered only three questions out of the 15 reached in today's Question Time. If he then chooses to link two of the substantial questions, he reduces even further our opportunities to cross-examine him. Surely there should be some safeguard for the House against a Cabinet Minister unilaterally choosing to link questions because there may be an apparent connection between them. If that policy were taken to its logical conclusion, all the questions could be linked because they related to Scotland.

Madam Speaker: I have done a little calculation myself, and the House may be interested to know that I called seven supplementary questions in connection with the two linked questions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising my conduct. The decision whether or not to link questions is entirely at the discretion of the relevant Minister.

Mr. James Wallace: on a point of order, Madam Speaker. in reply to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the Under-Secretary said that the consultation document would involve genuine consultation. Can the House have guidelines on which consultation exercises will be genuine and which will not?

Madam Speaker: That was a very good move on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but it was certainly not a point of order for me.

Mr. William Ross: It is more a matter of guidance than a point of order that I wish to raise. It relates to an organisation that you chair, Madam Speaker, so I thought that it should be brought to your attention.
In a foreign legislature yesterday, and earlier in the Anglo-Irish conference, decisions taken by the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Boundary Commission were called into question. It was alleged that the decisions taken by that organisation were discriminatory.
That raises a matter of constitutional importance of interest not only to the House but to the whole country. A foreign Government are now trying to overturn decisions made by a commission of which you, Madam Speaker, are

the chairperson. I should be grateful if you would tell the House what steps the House and Her Majesty's Government may take to refute that interference by Dublin, which goes beyond all reasonable bounds.

Madam Speaker: I shall look at the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which is currently unknown to me. I shall make urgent inquiries about it and come back to him.

Mr. Brian Donohoe: on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Why, during the past four Scottish questions, have I failed to catch your eye? My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) says that it has something to do with my tie. Will you advise me whether that is the case?

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I promise that I am not cringing, but I have no complaints to make.

Madam Speaker: The latter point of order is most welcome. I recognise that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) has stood up on practically every question. It is not possible for me to call all Scottish Members during question time—

Mr. John Home Robertson: All the Conservatives get called.

Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has a criticism to make, he should stand up so that we can have a proper exchange about it. I am replying to a point of order, and do not expect seated interventions when I am on my feet.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has stood up on every question. I regret that I have been unable to call him. I look on that Back Bench because it contains many handsome Members. Without any commitment, the hon. Gentleman can be sure that I shall look his way in future.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am in a little difficulty, because the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) made an interesting contribution to the debate on the intelligence services, in column 205 of yesterday's Official Report. The only problem is that the speech is attributed to me. Although I agree with much that he said, the record should be corrected.

Madam Speaker: Absolutely, and I am sure that the Editor of the Official Report will have heard what the hon. Gentleman had said.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The point of order that I wish to raise with you, Madam Speaker, is on the transferring of questions. I wish to establish where responsibility lies and what powers the Chair has to protect the interests of hon. Members.
My specific example is that I tabled an oral question for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the subject of the fish farming industry. Unilaterally, the Ministry has transferred the question to the Scottish Office. If I wanted to ask the Scottish Office, I would ask the Scottish Office. on such a matter, there are shades of opinion and different roles. The crucial point is that the lead Ministry in dealings with Europe is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: There are salmon farms in England as well.

Mr. Wilson: As the hon. Member says, salmon farms exist in England, too.

Mr. William Ross: And in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wilson: And in Northern Ireland. Clearly, the question has been transferred to avoid political difficulty. That is not a good enough reason.

Madam Speaker: The Minister himself determines where his responsibilities lie and whether he is responsible for the question. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a question has been transferred unjustly and unnecessarily, he should raise the matter with the Minister.

Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a member of the Opposition Front Bench to visit the Press Gallery? I spent some 19 years up there and have never known that to happen before.

Madam Speaker: I should have thought that a Member elected to this House had access to all parts of it. I have never been in the Press Gallery, but I understand that all the press can see of me are my buckled shoes.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to a previous point of order, Madam Speaker, on Members' rights regarding the linking of questions. It is a more general point than the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). When questions are linked, it is for the convenience not of Members but of the Executive.
The House does not exist for the convenience of Ministers, but for the convenience of hon. Members. There have been many occasions when the linking of questions has not been notified in time to hon. Members whose questions have been linked. When questions are linked, even if that is admissible, it is a matter of interest not only to the Ministers and hon. Members whose questions are linked, but to any hon. Member who might wish to participate in Question Time and who might come in for Question 8, but find that it has already been dealt with after being linked with Question 1.
Is it beyond the wit of the organisation of the House for notification of which questions are being linked to be available in the morning to all hon. Members?

Madam Speaker: If hon. Members are seeking to change our procedures on the matter, it may be something that the Procedure Committee could usefully consider. The hon. Gentleman advanced two interesting points. He was right to say that sometimes hon. Members are not notified. That has happened when I have been in the Chair. When it occurs, of course I allow the hon. Member concerned to ask his question separately and I have done so recently.
When questions are linked, I understand the extent of interest, and I tend to allow more supplementary questions and I call hon. Members who are interested in the issue. The first point may be a matter that the Procedure Committee will wish to consider.

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to apologise if I irritated you earlier. I assure you that I was not complaining, but simply observing that Scottish Conservative Members can always be called at Scottish questions. That is clearly a problem of Scottish political arithmetic. It has nothing to do with you, Madam Speaker, and I assure you that I was not complaining.
The substantive point of order that I want to raise concerns another matter. There has been another instance of a very important announcement, which should have been made through an oral statement by a Minister in the House, appearing as a planted question on the Order Paper.
I am referring to Question 180, which deals with further redundancies in the Army. That is a serious matter, which affects many people in the armed forces, including some personnel on active service in Bosnia. I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to put it to Ministers that, where possible, statements of that nature should be made as oral statements in the House, and should not be sneaked in via planted written questions.

Madam Speaker: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the preamble to his point of order. He knows that it is entirely up to the Minister whether he makes a statement at the Dispatch Box or in answer to a written question. I understand that the answer to today's question is the third such announcement under the Government's "Options for Change" policy—there has been no change of policy. It is not for me to make the Government's case; I am simply trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that a written answer is not unusual in these circumstances.

BILL PRESENTED

HARE COURSING

Mr. Colin Pickthall, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Elliott Morley, Mr. Edward O'Hara and Mr. Roger Stott, presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal; to prohibit the use of any place for or in connection with hare coursing; to provide for the confiscation of any animal or equipment used or to be used for or in connection with hare coursing; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 March, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

Pensions Reform

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for employers' and employees' pension contributions to be paid into personally owned funds registered for the purpose of future pension payment.
A lot of attention in the House and elsewhere has rightly been paid to the problems that are caused when pension funds are embezzled and illegal action takes place.
I pay tribute to the work being done by the Select Committee on Social Security, which is trying to bring a public focus to bear on the issues that are raised. There has also been a lot of focus on the mismanagement of pension funds. Out of respect to my right hon. Friend the Member Selby (Mr. Alison), who I see present, I shall not say too much about the Church Commissioners.
What has not received enough attention is the perfectly legal disadvantage suffered by many pensioners as a result of their decision to move jobs for one reason for another, or because they have been made redundant.
The problem of early leavers is particularly acute, and that is what I want to address by means of the Bill. As a society, we increasingly expect mobility. The age when my grandfather left school at 14 and worked for the same employer for the whole of his working life has long since passed. Most contemporary workers would expect to work for more than one company and perhaps in more than one industry in the course of their working lives. If the provisions of private pensions disadvantage those people in moving from job to job or from industry to industry, the matter needs to be addressed and set right.
Hon. Members have said many times that civil servants should be able to move backwards and forwards from the civil service to industry, local government and academia, and even to consultancies. Everybody would benefit from that, but the constant block is the consequence for pensions, and only secondment is possible. People are unwilling to move from job to job because of the loss of pension entitlement that would result.
The matter concerns many hon. Members and also worries many people who come to my surgery, especially during a time of recession, when people may be made redundant and have to change careers. I expect that almost every hon. Member has had such experiences in his surgery.
The present pensions system seems to be entirely based on those who always work for the same company, those who are fortunate enough to work in an industry that has

a common pensions system so that when they change companies they are not disadvantaged, or those who are powerful enough to negotiate, as part of their package for changing jobs, an enhancement of pension rights so that they do not suffer.
Those who are particularly disadvantaged are people whose occupations have high job mobility and for which there is no common scheme. The disadvantaged also include women who may stop working to have a family or because they wish to have experience in other professions, whether related to their own or in an entirely different field, or perhaps in voluntary work. Others return to part-time work in later life. As a result of redundancy, especially in later years, many people are forced to draw an early pension and do not receive the benefit they might otherwise expect.
Present pension fund arrangements mean that people can draw the pension when they reach pension age, and perhaps their wives and husbands can draw it when the person dies, but there are restrictive rules about accumulated pension rights being passed to families or charities or to any other beneficiary that the pension holder had in mind.
The Bill sets out to ensure that employers' contributions, like those of employees, are set aside and accumulated with profits, so that if someone wishes to change his job, he can simply take them to the next job. The effect is cumulative, in that the employers' and employees' contributions and profits are added throughout the career of the worker. The Bill also provides an opportunity for additional contributions, which will result in more benefits later in life.
The issue will come to the House again and again because, as society changes, more and more people will undoubtedly find themselves caught out by the present arrangements. I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Jacques Arnold and Mr. John Marshall.

PENSIONS REFORM

Mr. Robert B. Jones accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for employers' and employees' pension contributions to be paid into personally owned funds registered for the purpose of future pension payment: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 March, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

Orders of the Day — Sunday Trading Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot understand why my amendment to delete Wales from the provisions of the Bill was not selected. No other amendments are anything like that amendment, and there is no opportunity for me or my colleagues to raise the issue, because, once again, the amendment has not been selected.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman complains about the non-selection of his amendment. The selection of amendments is the responsibility of the Speaker. I have looked at them carefully to make my selection for today's debate.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman as gently as I can that the selection of amendments is entirely at the discretion of the Speaker.

New Clause 1

LOADING AND UNLOADING AT LARGE SHOPS ON SUNDAY MORNING

`(1) A local authority may resolve that Schedule [Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning] to this Act is to apply to their area.

(2) If a local authority do so resolve, Schedule [Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning] shall come into force in their area on such date as may be specified for that purpose in the resolution, being a date at least one month after the date on which the resolution is passed.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 3—Meaning of "local authority"—and Government amendments Nos. 50, 49 and 52 to 55.

Mr. Lloyd: I gave a commitment in Standing Committee to consider the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), among others, about deliveries to large shops in residential areas on Sunday mornings. The worry was that, if shops opened at 10 am, local people could be disturbed by deliveries arriving early in the morning.
We have discussed the matter with local authority organisations and retailers, and I am extremely grateful to them, particularly the local authority organisations, for their prompt advice.
As I said in Committee, there are already a range of powers to deal with noise nuisance, and most stores want to be regarded as good neighbours, especially by potential customers living nearby. However, the local authorities were clear that they would like a specific power between exhortation and general statutory powers. The new clause and schedule bridge that gap.
The new clause permits a local authority to take the powers in the schedule which will enable it to prohibit deliveries before 9 am—late enough to preserve the quiet of an early Sunday morning. If the local authority proceeds in that way, a shop may still apply for consent for deliveries to take place before 9 am. Consent must be granted after consultation with local residents, unless the local authority believes that the deliveries will cause undue disturbance to those living nearby.

Mr. William O'Brien: in the discussions with local authorities and local authority associations, was any comment made about the fact that local authorities are so strapped for resources that it would be extremely difficult for them to police such activities on Sunday mornings? If not, will the Minister seek their views on policing them?

Mr. Lloyd: That point was not put to me. Local authorities are glad to have a more simple power, so that they may use fewer resources than if they were to use the wider statutory powers they already have. Although I understand that all local authorities would like more resources, it will not use up more resources but will enable them to carry out their task more speedily and efficiently in the interests of local residents.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that local residents would also be efficient policemen of that power? If they were disturbed by lorries before 9 o'clock where that permission had been refused, I guarantee that they would be willing to be witnesses and to complain to the authority the next morning, if not that day.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that my hon. Friend is quite right. All I would add to what I have just said is that there are a number of other amendments in the group. They are all technical, defining "local authority" for this purpose and the purposes of the Bill in general.
I am quite sure that everyone, whether they are in favour of or opposed to Sunday opening, will welcome the extra powers that local authorities will now have to deal with the noise nuisance that opening may cause.

Ms Joan Ruddock: The Minister's speeches are always very brief. I shall take a little more time, because I believe that this is an extremely important issue.
As the Minister acknowledged, Labour raised in Committee a number of amendments designed to explore the environmental impact of Sunday trading.
The Minister referred in Committee, as he did today, to the measures already available to local authorities under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and Environmental Protection Act 1990. We acknowledge their importance and the existing provisions of planning law, but maintain that additional powers should be granted to local authorities, to recognise the consequences of much-increased Sunday trading.
In pursuing that matter, we reflect the concerns of our constituents and their local authority representatives. I am glad that the Minister accepts the importance of the issue and, through these amendments, has allowed us to address it. Both the hon. Gentleman and I have maintained close contact with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other organisations, which in turn consulted their members.
The response of the director of health and community services for Gateshead metropolitan borough council is typical. That authority confirms that it has had to deal with disturbance to residents caused by deliveries to supermarkets. Gateshead's director of health and community services wrote:
Disturbance can be widespread and at locations remote from the supermarket due to the movement of large articulated delivery lorries passing through residential areas.
Noise at or near the supermarket is caused by the manoeuvring of large delivery vehicles; lorry reverse warning signals; the idling of lorry engines which is required to power ancillary equipment such as lifts; the movement of large metal containers over hard surfaces, and the shouting of delivery/supermarket personnel.
It is the experience of this Authority that people living near or on the route to a supermarket will tolerate a certain degree of disamenity from the above-mentioned sources, but only during less noise-sensitive times of the day eg Monday to Saturday, 8 am to 6 pm.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I have sympathy with some of the hon. Lady's points, but does she not concede that vigorous application of highways Acts would discourage and make illegal deliveries before 9 am, if that caused a nuisance?

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman may have shared my experience and that of other hon. Members. When constituents bring noise problems to one's attention and one requests the local authority to address them through the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the process is cumbersome and lengthy. The nuisance must be caused before action can be taken, whereas the merit of the Minister's proposals is that it would be possible to try to prevent the nuisance arising in the first place.
The letter from Gateshead's director of health and community services continues:
Planning legislation and planning conditions are a useful means of avoiding disturbance from deliveries and have been used effectively by this Authority. However planning conditions will only apply to new development and cannot be applied retrospectively.
Early morning or late night deliveries can cause acute noise problems and complainants demand a speedy remedy.
The Noise Abatement Zone provisions and procedures of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which are lengthy are therefore not the answer.
Not every superstore is in a location where there is a potential for disturbance, however many are, and so each case must be judged on its merits. I would support a procedure which would require each superstore to notify a local authority of its intentions so that the effects on local residents can be assessed. The procedure should promote discussion between Local Authorities and superstores so that sensible agreement can be reached.
That "sensible agreement" would, we hope, follow notification of Sunday opening by large stores to their local authorities under the registration scheme that is central to the Bill. However, experience tells us that, often, much damage is done and offence caused before remedies are provided under existing environmental protection law.

Mr. Michael Lord: Will the hon. Lady confirm that these problems arise mostly from what she is describing as superstores? Whichever way we look at it, there will be some activity, whether it is noise, or those people who are having to work to prevent noise and police the whole thing. Does she accept that those problems could not arise were those large stores simply not allowed to open on a Sunday?

Ms Ruddock: There is an undeniable logic in that point, but, as the hon. Member will recall—as I recall today and recalled during much of the proceedings in Committee —the House in its wisdom decided that the larger stores, the superstores, should be allowed to trade on Sunday for a limited period of six hours.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Lack of wisdom.

Ms Ruddock: If they are to trade, I consider it my duty and that of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to endeavour in every way possible to try to ameliorate the problems that could be so caused.

4 pm

Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I agree with her that a lack of wisdom was shown. Does that mean that she will now support the amendments to be called later today to limit the size of shops that can open?

Ms Ruddock: I fear that the hon. Gentleman misheard. It was a woman's voice—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Mine.

Ms Ruddock: — saying that there was a lack of wisdom, but I did not say that; he is mistaken. He knows from our discussions and deliberations in Committee that, on that matter, I shall probably be on the other side, although there have been matters on which we have agreed. I know that the hon. Gentleman very much wanted to see some amelioration of environmental impacts should they occur after the Bill be passed.
I believe that protection is required, particularly in relation to older premises, many of which are situated in residential neighbourhoods. As I said in Committee, I believe that many stores would not need to have any deliveries on a Sunday; many do not have perishable goods and there is no reason why deliveries should be made.
However, where they are taking place—I believe that there would be fewer than on other days of the week—there is a need to try to see that the least possible disturbance is caused. The modest provisions of the new clauses and amendments should be eminently workable, and are patently in the interests of those who live adjacent to such stores and who have every right to expect some protection from increasing commercialisation.
Finally, much could be done in addition to early morning restriction of deliveries. A number of changes have already been entered into by some companies in consultation with local authorities and have led to a considerable reduction in noise nuisance during existing weekday deliveries: the re-routing of delivery vehicles, a common request with which we would expect all firms to comply where it is possible; development of acoustic loading bays; use of wooden pallets; and secondary double glazing of residents' homes. Those are all proven examples of positive local action to ameliorate the environmental impact of large-scale deliveries.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: The hon. Lady mentioned doubling glazing of residents' homes. Obviously that is a benefit. Does she agree, however, that that is the benefit of last resort, that limiting the emanation


of noise is the key factor, and that, when one has to double-glaze, it is an admission that one has failed in the first place?

Ms Ruddock: I accept that. The force of the new clauses and amendments is that there should be prevention rather than cure. Of course those measures are measures of last resort, but it is important that we note that such things have been done, that there are examples, that companies have been obliged to take such measures to protect local neighbourhoods. Those measures are important. The burden of my case is that we should expect all possible measures to be put in place if the Bill becomes law.
Many local authorities have been conscious that prevention is better than cure, and have therefore built into their planning consents restrictions on Sunday activities, such as the time when deliveries may be made or, in some cases, that no deliveries are allowed. These constraints tend to apply only to the most recent supermarket and other large store developments.
Furthermore, I believe that, if the Bill becomes law, companies will seek the lifting of the existing restrictions.We are pleased to have on the record the Minister's assurances, given in Committee, that a new Sunday trading law could in no way provide automatic relief from those restrictions; none the less, we feel that these new measures are necessary.
I believe that hon. Members will welcome the protection from the curse of noise nuisance that the new clause and amendments would give their constituents. Large companies must consider themselves under a public duty to reduce noise wherever possible; while we must expect them to make much of that effort voluntarily and willingly, the prohibition of early morning loading and unloading would give more force to what I am sure all hon. Members want—the protection of the local environments of our constituents.

Mr. Alton: The new clause and amendments are worthy of our support, because they constitute an attempt to improve the Bill; I am tempted, however, to see them as yet another example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. How much easier it would have been had the House decided at a much earlier stage to limit Sunday opening to small shops.
I was extremely disappointed to hear from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) that, although no changes had been made to provide proper employee protection and no guarantees had been given on such issues as premium payments and double-time working, she was prepared to budge at all in the votes that will take place later. Those votes will give the House a chance to think again, and to try to undo some of the damage done by earlier votes.

Mr. Fabricant: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, whether he agrees or disagrees, the House decided on 6 December that shops should be allowed to open on Sundays? There was no three-line Whip—at least on either Labour or the Conservative party—and, given that the House made the decision, it is arrogant in the extreme to argue in Committee and on Report that it should be deferred.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman should realise that, until the Bill receives Royal Assent, it remains a Bill, and we in the House of Commons—and, indeed, the other

place—have the right to reform it at any stage. When hon. Members voted at an earlier stage, they did so with a false prospectus before them: they were told that emplolyment protection would be provided, but it was never set out in the Bill. Nor were they told that the House would be presented with another Bill—the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—which would allow shops to open from Monday to Saturday, 24 hours a day. If they had been told that, I do not believe that they would have voted as they did.

Ms Angela Eagle: Some hon. Members—including me—voted on the options before us after saying, in points of order, that the way in which we were being asked to vote was wrong, and that employment protection should have been debated first. We voted conditionally, on the basis of what that employee protection—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The debate is about loading and unloading, but we are moving very wide of that subject.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) makes a fair point, however. I shall return to the new clause immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is fair to point out that votes were conditional. That is my response to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We repeatedly warned that that would be the result, and that shopworkers would be affected. Now Opposition Members are ruing their actions.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady reinforces my point: hon. Members voted without the necessary information before them and with no knowledge of the other agenda with which they would be presented.
Now there are attempts, such as those in the amendment, to tidy up the Bill, to give it a more attractive face, but those are superficial amendments and the House should not be conned into believing otherwise. The amendments before us are, as the hon. Member for Deptford said, modest. That is a charitable use of the word. They are minor amendments, which will simply tidy things up.
If we think about the real environmental pressures that are linked in the amendment to the trading and the opening of shops on Sundays, we can obtain some idea of what will happen when Sunday becomes yet another Saturday. There will be increased energy consumption, greater air pollution and greater noise.
I draw the attention of the House to a report that appeared in The Independent on 6 December 1993:
A shift to widespread Sunday trading could result in an extra one million tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted when the Government wants to cut ten million tonnes per annum from Britain's present emissions in 2000, to comply with the Rio climate protection treaty.
In other words, however much good the amendments do in trying to reduce the environmental impact on a Sunday, widespread Sunday opening will have a catastrophic effect on the environment because of the extra noise, the extra air pollution, the extra wear and tear on road surfaces, and the traffic that will be generated as a result of all that extra trading.
There is clear evidence of lower levels of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide in London on Sundays at present, which makes life easier for asthmatics. How much worse it will be for them—and for


anyone else who cares about their children, in the light of reports that we have seen in the newspapers recently about the high concentration of air pollution at the level of prams and cots, as people take their children on walks through high streets. They will not even be able to do that on a Sunday in the future without coming into contact with that air pollution.
In addition, the cross-party Association of District Councils warned of the dangers from Sunday trading in increasing traffic congestion, which would force them to levy the increased costs of traffic wardens on the motorist through car park charges. That report appeared in the Financial Times on 10 December 1993.
I believe that those reasons show why we are wrong, as a House of Commons, to give widespread powers to shops to open as and when they wish on a Sunday, and indeed every other day of the week, but, if they are going to do so, new clauses such as this at least try to limit that. For those reasons, I would give what the hon. Lady called "a modest amendment" my support.

Mr. Lord: rose—

Mr. Alton: Before concluding, I will give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Lord: Are not all the things that we foresaw starting to happen? We are discussing noise in the vicinity of supermarkets, but we have to think of policemen, of traffic wardens, of refuse collection and of those people in local authorities whose job it is to regulate shops and their activities. It is the thin end of the wedge. It is all coming about as those of us who did not want Sunday trading prophesied. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not too late for those people who think that they were misled earlier in the debate to change their minds today and ensure that we keep our Sundays.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman is right. All those things were laid before the House, but some people felt that the arguments about employee protection would be met later; that they were conditional—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing employment protection: we are discussing loading and unloading. The hon. Gentleman must get back to the new clause.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try not to be led astray again.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman express a view on the subject of arrogance in dealing with relevant issues now? Surely it is the job of the House, and the business of elected representatives, to make the necessary changes—if changes are to be made—now, before the Bill becomes law. Is it not arrogant to suggest otherwise?

Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why, I not only think that we should support the amendment now, modest though it is, but hope that the hon. Gentleman will put his argument forcefully to the House in later debates.

Mr. Bob Cryer: New Clause 1 on unloading and unloading demonstrates well the dangers

and difficulties that arise with Sunday trading. The Government are supposed to be taking regulations off people's backs, but here are more regulations. As the schedule relates to unloading before 9 am, lorries will arrive before 9 am, disturbing other people en route. Local authorities will have to apply for powers to deal with that problem, but I already have a problem in my constituency.
Lorries make deliveries to a 24-hour operation called Allied Colloids, where there was a major fire about two years ago. There is a group of houses near the factory to which lorries make deliveries at all hours, although Allied Colloids has asked them not to do so. At 6 am or 7 am, people have to ask the lorry drivers to switch off their engines or move away. Some drivers are helpful and co-operative, while others tell them to get lost.
4.15 pm
Lives are being permanently disrupted because of gross pollution. Hon. Members are in a difficult position. The new clause is designed to remedy such pollution and the intrusion into people's lives. By and large, they will agree to the clause because they believe that it might help people who will be oppressed by this wretched legislation.
However, those are only peripheral matters. The very existence of the new clause is a recognition of the fact that lives will be intruded on by deliveries and unloading. Pollution and noise will be created first, and only after they have occurred will people, as a reaction, have to try to stop them. The fact that the new clause is necessary is a measure of the deterioration that will occur on Sundays.
The new clause is a sop to get the legislation passed. The sop will no doubt be accepted by the House, but there is an alternative. If hon. Members are seriously concerned about providing decent quiet lives for people—and, incidentally, about providing protection for people who work on Sundays—they must vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Wolfson: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) because some of his constituents are clearly in exactly the same position as some of mine. My constituents have two problems.
The first involves an organisation called the West Kent Cold Store in Sevenoaks from which lorries move at all times. There are some limitations on their movements, but it is a continual battle to get them to conform. My experience is that, by and large, the traffic commissioners tend to give increased leeway to such companies when they apply for a more liberal regime which means that the residents lose out time and again.
The problem will, of course, get worse when there is an increased demand for activity on Sundays. Sundays will be busier and there will be more traffic and more lorries waiting outside people's homes with their engines running to keep the refrigeration going, whether or not it is allowed. As the hon. Member for Bradford, South said, when residents remonstrate with a driver they get a mouthful. That will be no more pleasant on a Sunday than on any other day of the week.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although the Bill does not apply specifically to Northern Ireland, I understand the arguments being presented. This week, we have been told that we should not pass legislation that will be difficult to police. Some of us have had experience of trying to get the law on quietness enforced six days a week


but what will it be like trying to get this law enforced on the seventh day? Will it not be impossible to enforce properly?

Mr. Wolfson: It will certainly be very difficult to enforce, which brings me to my second point.
Under the new law the local authority will be given increased powers. Will the Minister clarify for me whether there will still be the opportunity for companies to appeal against its decisions, so that they can be overridden? When Sainsbury's opened a superstore in Sevenoaks, which we were happy to have, no sooner was the ink dry on the consent to build, the building ready and the store about to open, than the company appealed against the original restrictions set on traffic movement. I want to know whether that difficulty will be adequately dealt with, because in my experience superstores tend to get what they want, even if it takes a long time for them to get it.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The council's decision will be made through its power to pass a resolution to take advantage of the new schedule introduced by the new clause. If a store does not like a local authority's decision—for instance, if it has applied to the local authority to deliver before 9 o'clock and been refused—as things stand it may go for judicial review if it can argue before a judge that the decision was unreasonable. That is the only route available, but it is the usual route with administrative decisions of that nature.

Mr. Wolfson: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the position.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Although the hon. Gentleman is thanking the Minister for clarifying the position, does he agree that he has clarified it into such a mess that it can hardly be untangled? Will we not have to untangle what the Minister said about the process and the judicial review that he suggested would have to take place?

Mr. Wolfson: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to develop my argument I shall come to that.
Certainly my hon. Friend has clarified the position, but my experience of the way in which the superstores look to their own opportunities at the expense of local residents does not make me feel optimistic about how the provision will work. Superstores have the resources, the opportunity and often the desire to go to judicial review, so that may well happen.
I support the new clause and the amendments because they help to deal with a problem that the House has created by agreeing to a relative free-for-all on Sunday trading, but I firmly hold to the view that I greatly regret our having taken that decision. Having seen some recent Sundays in London, I know that the city is already becoming a great deal busier than before the decision was taken. As other hon. Members have said, we are already seeing many of the problems that were aired on Second Reading coming to light. The amendments are designed to deal with them, but they will not deal with them satisfactorily.

Mr. John Hutton: In general terms, the amendments should be welcomed. If they are carried, as I suspect they will be, they will represent a modest improvement to the Bill. But, following what the

hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said, I must tell the House that I have some specific concerns about the collection of amendments, especially No. 49.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the position on appeals against local authorities' decisions, and the Minister said that any company that had received an unwelcome decision from a local authority could exercise its right to go for judicial review.
The group of amendments and the other issues that we shall deal with today concern matters that are in the main related to planning. It is normal and customary for there to be an appeal to a planning inspector in respect of planning applications, so it is rather bizarre for the Minister to tell the House that the best solution for a dissatisfied company is to exercise its right to go the High Court and seek judicial review. That is an immensely expensive option. I wonder whether underlying the Minister's response to the hon. Gentleman's question is something of a lack of preparedness on the part of his Department with regard to the issues raised by these amendments.
I should like now to say something about my second concern with regard to the amendments. They lay down a detailed procedure relating to local authority decisions on any restrictions that are to be imposed on the delivery of goods at a superstore on a Sunday. I welcome this move, but it seems that the amendments contain nothing concerning a procedure for revoking a council's original decision. We know what will happen when a council wants to exercise its powers under these provisions, but what procedure will it have to follow if it wants to revoke its original decision?
As the amendments are constructed, it is reasonably clear that a council will be able to exercise its powers only if a written application is received from a company that wants to open a large shop on a Sunday. What will happen if, for example, as a result of complaints from residents, a council wants to tighten restrictions that it has imposed —perhaps to lessen noise or inconvenience? What revocation procedure does the Minister have in mind? It seems to me that the amendments contain nothing to address that issue. The Minister may well say that a council wanting to revoke a decision will simply have to pass a new resolution. It seems to me that the amendments contain no such provision.

Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman is talking about judicial reviews and a whole variety of processes. Is not the history of this problem one of people hiding behind long, drawn-out legal processes, whether in this country or in Europe? Those of us whose constituencies have noise problems can envisage the judicial process grinding along for months, if not years, while the lorries continue to run and the noise and all the other problems remain.

Mr. Hutton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about delays in the legal system, though it may well be outside the scope of the amendments. One of the problems about judicial review is that delay is built into the system. I am not here to argue the case for the supermarkets and the big superstores—they have their own lawyers—but it seems logical that these amendments should incorporate an appeals procedure. This is quite clearly an omission, which I hope the Government will take into account in another place.
The crucial point is that the amendments contain nothing by way of power to revoke a local authority's


original decision. As I have said, it is hardly good enough, by way of response, to say that a local authority can pass another resolution amending its original decision. Such a procedure does not appear to be envisaged in the amendments.
Anyone looking at amendment No. 49 will see that a local authority must carry a resolution within 21 days of submission of the written application to the local authority. In the nature of planning applications—and it is right that these amendments should be considered as an aspect of planning procedure—21 days is a remarkably short period. I wonder whether it will be sufficient to enable the consultation with residents that the amendments envisage. I have in mind in particular a number of superstore developments right in the centre of my constituency that continue to cause immense disturbance to residents. I do not believe that the period of 21 days is sufficient for consultation that most council taxpayers would think acceptable.
With these quite substantial reservations about their accuracy and comprehensiveness, I express my general support for the amendments, as they represent an improvement in the Bill. My point to the Minister is simply that there are three gaps or holes in the new clauses and amendments on which I urge him to respond and reconsider and, if necessary, in another place ask his right hon. Friends to table further amendments.

Mr. Lord: Throughout the debate, some of us have argued that if Sunday is totally deregulated it will become just another day of the week—just another working day. We all know that from Monday to Friday or perhaps Monday to Saturday, 9 am is the time at which we all start work—perhaps not in the House but in schools and most offices, it is the beginning of the working day. Thankfully, until now 9 o'clock on Sunday has not meant a great deal to anyone. The time at which we go to church or go about our Sunday activities is not scheduled like the rest of the week.
On the specific point dealt with in the new clause, by talking about "9 o'clock", "before 9 o'clock" and "after 9 o'clock", we are admitting that we are bringing Sunday into the working week and no longer is it a special day.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The point that I should like the Minister to clarify for me in the light of the amendments is whether any assistance will be given to local authorities in funding the additional costs that will inevitably occur. In my constituency, the two supermarkets that come to mind are older and literally cheek by jowl with residential areas. It will not be sufficient for the local authority simply to write yea or nay on the application by the owners of those supermarkets to trade on a Sunday. The local authority will physically have to change parking arrangements that already exist and, indeed, are posited for my constituents.
To make such changes is no small thing. Will the local authority be assisted with changing notices, repainting lines and redefining bays? If one of the superstores wishes to open on a Sunday, residents of the street will have no right whatever to park in the spaces because it will be physically impossible for a lorry to draw up to the delivery

bay. That is where my constituents, and their families who may be visiting, park their cars on Sundays when parking restrictions in delivery bays are lifted.
On the face of it, the procedures proposed in the new clauses and amendments seem simple for the local authority to undertake. They are simply the granting or denying of permission for lorries to deliver at 9 o'clock on a Sunday morning. However, for my constituents in two particular areas, if such permission is given, it will not only be vastly deleterious to their Sundays by virtue of the noise that they will have to endure, the fumes that they will have to breathe and all the points that hon. Members on both sides of the House have already made, but it will involve costs for their local authority. I believe that those costs will be sizeable.
One of the earlier points was about the cost of policing this particular arrangement. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said that the best policemen would be the residents. He said that they could alert their local authority on the day if noise was worrying them. But that presumably would mean that the local authority had to set up on that Sunday, either at the town hall or in some office so designated, employees to take phone calls, log complaints and forward complaints to the necessary committee.
There will be a great deal of hidden expense for local authorities in the new clauses and amendments, if the House sees fit to pass them. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some idea of whether central Government will assist local authorities, if the Bill is passed. If not, will the Government enter into negotiations with the owners of superstores to help relieve local authorities of an undoubted financial burden?

Rev. William McCrea: I shall not detain the House long in speaking to these new clauses and amendments. I want to point out two things. First, while the amendments are an improvement on what we had before, they are an acknowledgement that the legislation on Sunday trading is flawed. If the Bill goes through and becomes law, it will cause serious problems and anxieties to local communities. The amendments themselves are an acknowledgment of problems that were dismissed with a wave of the hand in the original debate and were regarded as foolish, not only by the Government Front Bench but by the Opposition Front Bench—something which genuinely surprised me because there are a lot of other rights that I thought they would have been concerned about.

Ms Ruddock: If I have understood him correctly, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Opposition Front Bench has not been concerned about these issues or has not expressed such concerns. I can assure him that if he reads the proceedings of the Committee on the Bill, he will see the extent to which we were concerned, as shown by the number of amendments that we raised. If he had listened to my opening remarks today, he would know full well that I dealt in detail with our concern about the environmental impact of Sunday trading. I relate our responsibility, as I said earlier, to the fact that the House made a decision. The decision having been made, our task has been to try to ameliorate some of the effects which we agree would be adverse.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but it was the Front Bench of the Labour party who, with other hon. Members, helped the Bill through, so


they cannot now say that they have a particular concern. We should not be discussing the legislation today had they joined many other hon. Members in taking a pat-ocular stand on Sunday trading, so they cannot piously wipe their hands now.
Coming back to the issue—I could easily be led off the track by the hon. Lady on this particular issue, and one would not desire to do that—of lorries and deliveries after 9 o'clock, mention was made of the large stores having adequate legal advice of their own on this. They also have adequate resources of their own.
The people who concern me are those in the community who have few resources or none at all with which to defend their rights. They are being cast aside. Ordinary members of the community will be unable to afford to establish even the rights that this Bill would give them.
That is why I believe that the legislation is flawed and why I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will think again, if they are really concerned about the Bill's environmental and other effects on the community.

Mr. Ray Powell: There is one question, in particular, that I should like the Minister to answer. He refers, in new clause 1 and amendment No. 49, to local authorities having the right to agree to applications for loading and unloading to take place at big stores before 9 o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) made an important point when she referred to the expense incurred by local authorities in introducing this provision. The Shops Act 1950 puts a responsibility on local authorities which over the past 10 years they have failed to meet, yet the Government have taken no action whatever to ensure compliance with the law on Sunday trading. Can the Minister tell the House what action he will take if this new provision becomes part of the law and the local authority does not implement it, either because it is not prepared to meet the expense involved or for any other reason? It is possible that large companies such as Tesco, B and Q and a number of others will put a lot of pressure on local authorities to allow them to be serviced by this agreement.
We know the problems that are encountered when large shops are serviced by large vans, as happens on weekdays and, illegally, on Sundays when such shops are open. I do not want to encourage the two branches of Tesco—one each end of my town of Bridgend—to be serviced in that way. I do not want my authority to grant those stores licences allowing big vans to load and unload before 9 am on Sunday. Bridgend is a market town of some 25,000 to 35,000 people, and the district has always enjoyed the tranquillity of Sundays. But the position is getting worse by the week, with more shops and large stores opening. If the licence is granted, it will cause great concern and difficulty.
Listening to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), I was alarmed at what I thought I heard. My hearing is not all that good and I do not know whether I caught what she said correctly. I am of the firm belief that the Bill must contain employment protection for people who deliver goods to the stores and are expected to work on Sunday.
In the last debate on the Floor of the House on the subject of transport workers, I read out a letter from start to finish. I shall not read it out again today as it can be seen in the Official Report. The letter dealt with the protests of workers who will have to drive their lorries early in the

morning to deliver and take away goods from big stores. Those people do not want to work on Sundays. Most of them—long-distance lorry drivers—say that they have never worked on Sundays, but will be expected to do so in the future.
Employment protection is highly relevant to the group of new clauses and amendments. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said that she thought that we had won some employment protection measures from the Government through minor amendments. I am not satisfied that the Government have made any amendments involving employment protection that would allow the Opposition Front Bench team to support the Government. We should not support the Government unless they give us more guarantees on employment protection before the end of the debates. Those guarantees should be stated clearly and precisely by the Minister so that we know the exact position.

Ms Ruddock: I shall help by hon. Friend and the House, without passing comment on my hon. Friend's hearing. I have not mentioned employment protection at any time during my contributions. The most important vote will be on Third Reading, and we have made it clear that that is to be a free vote.

Mr. Powell: I thank my hon. Friend, and I am sorry if I presupposed her remarks, but I have probably saved myself a later intervention as she has been warned of my intentions.
Before we vote on this group, particularly amendment No. 49, I should like an assurance from the Minister that local authorities will implement the legislation and that the Government will not show the indifference that they have shown to the Shops Act 1950.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I thought that this would be a short debate and did not even propose to reply to it. I shall not respond to most of the issues raised because many of the contributions rehearsed general attitudes to the Bill. They did not engage in debate on the principles or practicalities of the new clause.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend spoke of matters that we have rehearsed, but the Opposition were under a misapprehension. They thought that they had won certain conditions which we warned them that they would not be granted—the ball game has changed.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My hon. Friend seems to be saying that the ball game is just the same.
I shall reply to three questions posed on new clause 1. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) animadverted that the new clause was prepared quickly. He was right—I made an undertaking in Committee and wanted to produce the new clause on Report. The hon. Gentleman is right that there is no appeal process. I am aware of that and I will certainly reflect on the hon. Gentleman's words to see whether it might be sensible, in another place, to introduce an appeal process. I am not convinced that it would be for two reasons. First, it would lead to some extra expense for local authorities—that in itself is not decisive. Secondly, it would encourage some companies to appeal rather than simply obey the local authority's determination. The possibility of a judicial review remains, but I would not encourage people to take


that option—although it is widely used—unless they felt that the procedures and the reasons used by the local authority were unreasonable. The judicial review remains a possibility for anyone who seeks to use it in relation to an administrative decision.
The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, on which I shall reflect. Usually, it is the Opposition who call on the Government to find ways of setting aside decisions. I am willing to be convinced, but I am not yet convinced. I shall consider the matter and there will be an opportunity to adopt the proposal in another place should it seem sensible to do so.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible for a local authority to revoke permission once given. Yes, it would be possible to revoke permission or to provide additional conditions. A local authority could do that and, no doubt, there will be occasions when it will want to do so.

Mr. Hutton: The Minister says that the local authorities have the power to revoke an earlier decision. What procedures will they have to follow if they want to do that? The new group of amendments and new clauses contains no information about the procedures that a council will have to follow if it wants to revoke its original decision.

Mr. Lloyd: A local authority would have to use a fair and equitable procedure. It would doubtless do so on the basis of complaints received from local residents or knowledge that noise and disturbance were being caused. The local authority would have to talk to the store and its suppliers to see whether the problem could be remedied and to draw the store's attention to its displeasure. That would be done when consultation had taken place, but failed to resolve the problem. If the local authority did not do that, it would lay itself open to a judicial review because it would be proceeding unfairly and unreasonably.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again—he is being very indulgent.
If it is appropriate for the amendment to specify a procedure giving the authority the power to grant exemption from the 9 o'clock rule, why is it not appropriate for the Government to introduce in the House a procedure for allowing the local authority to revoke such permission? The Minister has rightly described a number of administrative and procedural methods that a council can use. But, in the context of such an important issue, if it is right to specify how the permission should be granted, should not it also be right to introduce a procedure for the withdrawal of that consent?

Mr. Lloyd: It would certainly not be wrong. As I said, I am perfectly prepared to look at the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I do not want to make the procedure too complicated. I want to retain the benefit that the provision grants to local authorities—it gives them extra muscle. It does not give them powers that they could never acquire under other legislation, but it allows them to gain powers more speedily and accurately so that they can deal with the problems that arise, even now, early on Sunday mornings.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) seemed confused when he said that my response to one of my hon. Friends had confused him further. He was definitely confused. Were a council to impose a ban

that was then challenged at judicial review, the ban would remain in place until the court set it aside. So the hon. Gentleman's worry about the matter going on for several years should be entertained no longer.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister answered an earlier point about a council's ability to revoke a decision and the fact that nothing on that matter is included in the Bill. He will be sensitive to the problem that councillors have been surcharged. If they revoke a decision, they can be surcharged by a district auditor. If there must be clear rules within which councils can operate, in circumstances where two factions are arguing, such as residents and a large store, would it help if the Government made it clear that a local authority that decides for or against will not be subject to local authority surcharge?

Mr. Lloyd: This is not a matter of surcharge. The hon. Gentleman is muddling it up with a different worry. I agreed with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness that the new clause was brought in rapidly to take account of a real worry expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the light of this debate and, particularly, anything that local authorities may wish to tell us—we have already conversed with them—I shall look at the matter again. We want the new clause to be effective and clear. I hope that that also satisfies the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) asked a number of questions, including whether we would give financial assistance to local authorities. I responded to that point on an intervention by another hon. Member earlier and said that those were not the sort of circumstances in which we would consider doing so. Rather than giving new powers and responsibilities to a local authority, the Bill enables them more speedily and effectively to discharge the responsibilities that it already has.
The hon. Lady's second point was about parking in some of the streets in her constituency. That is a problem for the store concerned and those delivering to it. If, early in the morning, cars are parked in such a way as those delivering to the store cannot make an early-morning delivery, that is a problem not for the local authority but for the store and those who deliver to it. They need to find an acceptable way to make that delivery, perhaps adapting the size of the delivery vehicle. The point is not directly germane to the powers of the local authority.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The point that I was trying to make was that those matters all affect my constituents. If the local authority assented to such a request, it would mean, in the street that I have in mind, the local authority having to introduce earlier than it intended a residents parking scheme to facilitate the entry of lorries to stores. That will have a knock-on effect on the lives of my constituents and also involve the local authority in additional costs.

Mr. Lloyd: As matters stand, deliveries may be made very early in the morning. The new clause will give local authorities the power to say that deliveries may not be made before 9 am. I do not believe that the new clause worsens the position of local residents or creates an additional problem for the council. Rather, it gives local authorities a new weapon with which to deal with such a problem. The local authority associations say that they are


already engaged in consultation with local residents and retailers throughout the country about perfectly lawful Sunday deliveries for perfectly lawful Sunday opening. But they do not have specific powers to deal with them early on a Sunday morning, which is what we are providing.
The hon. Lady and several other hon. Members mentioned extra costs imposed by traffic regulation. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy thought that, on balance, there would be no extra cost because local authorities would gain back any extra costs from parking charges and other such imposts. On policing, the Association of Chief Police Officers said that, if Sunday trading produced any extra work at all, it would be minimal and manageable. So the problem is one of enforcement rather than cost.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) asked whether the Government would make local authorities use that new power and I replied that, obviously, we would not. We are giving the new authorities a power that they want, but it will be up to the local authority when to use it. If they do not use it when they should, that is matter between them and angry local residents and voters, not a matter for the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN LEASES AND AGREEMENTS

`(1) Where any lease or agreement (however worded) entered into before the commencement of this section has the effect of requiring the occupier of a shop to keep the shop open for the serving of retail customers—

(a) during normal business hours, or
(b) during hours to be determined otherwise than by or with the consent of the occupier,

that lease or agreement shall not be regarded as requiring, or as enabling any person to require, the occupier to open the shop on Sunday for the serving of retail customers.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall not affect any lease or agreement

(a) to the extent that it relates specifically to Sunday and would (apart from this section) have the effect of requiring Sunday trading of a kind which before the commencement of this section would have been lawful by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the Shops Act 1950, or
(b) to the extent that it is varied by agreement after the commencement of this section.

(3) In this section "retail customer" and "shop" have the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to this Act.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 51.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and some other hon. Members expressed the concern in Committee that a small shopkeeper might not wish to open on a Sunday but might be obliged to open by virtue of a general provision in his or her lease requiring him or her to open during normal business hours. I undertook to consider whether it was possible to frame a narrow provision to meet this concern, which is what the new clause does. We have been helped considerably in framing the new clause by information and advice offered by Mr. Silman, a solicitor referred to us by

the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, the John Lewis Group, the Boots Group and others, and I am grateful for that help.
The new clause provides that, where any term in an existing lease or agreement, however phrased, has the effect of requiring the occupier of a shop to open during normal business hours or to open otherwise without the occupier's consent, such a term cannot oblige an occupier to open on a Sunday. That does not extend to the situation where a leaseholder—perhaps a newsagent—can already engage in lawful Sunday trading under the 1950 Act and has a lease that provides for that. Nor does it extend to leases entered into in the future.
Rather, the new clause deals with the central concern expressed in Committee, particularly by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, that shopkeepers should not be obliged by a general term in a lease to open on a Sunday. When a lease is taken out, there may be no consideration on either side of the possibility that phrases like "general business hours" might include Sunday. It would therefore be unfair if such a provision could in future, because of this legislation, involve a compulsion upon the leaseholder which he or she had not considered or agreed to when signing the lease.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the new clause apply to circumstances in which a local authority took a policy decision to open a market hall? Would the protection then apply to the existing leaseholders of the shop units in the market hall where there is no current obligation to open on Sunday? Were the local authority to change its policy, could it force unit holders to attend their stalls on a Sunday?

Mr. Lloyd: It would depend on the nature of the previous agreement between the leaseholders—the stall holders—and the council. If the agreement said that they will open on a Sunday and if the council ever decided that Sunday opening would be introduced, the new clause would not protect them. If the agreement did not specify Sundays or said, "normal business hours", it would protect them. It depends on the nature of the agreement.
We are seeking to ensure—I think that we have succeeded in doing so—that, in the case of agreements entered into where there was no expectation of Sunday working and where the prospect was not taken into account in the drafting of the agreement, this change in the law will not oblige a leaseholder to do what he or she does not want to do, had never intended to do and had not reasonably been in a position where he or she might have expected that it could happen.

Mr. Alton: Will not the Minister again admit that the decision to introduce the proposal is a tacit admission that those pressures will be placed on shops? However good the agreements are, shops will face commercial pressure to open because of the profit factor. Shops—particularly if they are up against the wall and face bankruptcy—will have no choice but to open, regardless of how many worthy clauses of this sort are included in the Bill.

5 pm

Mr. Lloyd: The proposal is a sensible change to ensure that such pressures are not put on small leaseholders. Of course, if businesses want to open, they may do so. Some will not want to open for commercial reasons—they may not think that they will do enough trade on Sundays. No


pressure should be placed on them to do so. The new clause makes a small, useful change that takes care of a problem identified by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Ms Ruddock: I am again grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has explained the new clause. He mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate; in Committee, she and other Labour Members envisaged that an existing lease that provided for a general trading agreement could be interpreted to mean that small shops in, for example, a shopping centre could be obliged to open when they considered that it was not in their interests to do so.
We are all familiar with the concept of the shopping centre that contains a large store, which will perhaps exercise its right to open for the limited period provided for in the Bill. As a consequence, the freeholder might attempt to ensure that the maximum amount of trade occurs and might ask all leaseholders to comply with the new Sunday opening arrangements. That would be grossly unfair and we are pleased that the Minister has found a way to give force to our argument.
We are aware that it was exceedingly difficult to do so. We are particularly pleased that Mr. Silman, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, has assisted the Government. I sent the new clause to Mr. Silman and he responded immediately, so I shall tax the Minister a little further. Mr. Silman has told me that the reference to the occupier in the second and penultimate lines of new clause 2(1) may present a problem. I am aware that throughout the Bill "occupier" is the relevant term, but Mr. Silman, who I presume is an expert on commercial leases, suggested that a contract could be with a tenant, but the covenant could be with the original tenant and could still make that person liable, although he or she is not now the occupier. Will the Minister respond to that small point?
In the main, we very much support the new clause. It appears to achieve our aim of ensuring that small shops or leaseholders do not have to open if they do not wish to do so. They may believe, for example, that it would not be economic to open. Small shops in shopping centres may employ only a few workers who might not want to work and employers may accept that working on a Sunday should be voluntary. For all those reasons, the new clause is very satisfactory.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I thank the Minister for his kind words, but credit should first go to Mr. Silman, who brought the loophole to my attention. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) for facilitating my approach to the Minister.
I thank the Minister for giving his time and attention to Mr. Silman. I hope that he will pay due heed to the point that he has raised via my hon. Friend and will change the wording of the Bill because that matter greatly concerns many shopkeepers, especially those in small shopping centres. Many are single-man businesses and I know that they, Mr. Silman and I are most grateful to the Minister.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for the remarks that have been made and I hope that the House will support the new

clause. I should be most interested to receive Mr. Silman's letter, to which the hon. Member for Deptford referred, so that I may consider the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

MEANING OF "LOCAL AUTHORITY"

'.—(1) In this Act "local authority" means any unitary authority or any district council so far as they are not a unitary authority.

(2) In subsection (1) above "unitary authority" means (a) the council of any county so far as they are the council for an area for which there are no district councils,

(b) the council of any district comprised in an area for which there is no county council,
 (c) a London borough council,
(d) the Common Council of the City of London, or
(e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

NON-ABATEMENT OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS

'(1) Any provision in an agreement between a shop worker and his employer (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be unenforceable to the extent that it purports—

(a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Act, and
(b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to or from bringing any proceedings before an industrial tribunal under any provision of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of this section "shop worker" has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 below.'.—[Mr. Purchase.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Purchase: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I agreed to withdraw a similar new clause in Committee so that the Minister could explain why he thought it was unnecessary. He suggested that employment protection issues had already been properly and fully covered in the Bill—I think he said that there were "no loopholes". I am not sure that that is relevant to my new clause, which aims to pick up on the International Labour Organisation's views about non-abatement and minimum rates of pay under the British wages councils.
I have tabled the new clause because the Bill has few enough provisions on worker protection and it will require a great deal of effort if a worker wants to enforce any of them. The new clause would at least help workers in the difficult task of trying to prove their case against an employer.
The Minister confidently suggested that there were no loopholes, but I refer him to a national newspaper article that appeared on 21 February 1994, with the headline "Gap in code on Sunday working". It dealt with an industrial dispute at a Tesco distribution complex at Crick, near Northampton. People involved in the dispute believe that a loophole in the Sunday Trading Bill
will leave tens of thousands of workers without protection".
The article continues:
Tesco management is demanding that nightshift workers at the warehouse… put in at least three in seven Sundays from April in response to extra weekend demand at Tesco stores.
Although the Bill is not yet law, we are already starting to see how it is structuring employer-employee relationships. The employee is an exceedingly vulnerable


position in relation to Sunday trading. There is a massive reserve army of people waiting to walk into jobs at any rate of pay and under any conditions or terms that are offered. That is happening in advance of the Bill becoming an Act and we shall see what transpires when we vote later.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the article in The Guardian on 21 February. He missed out the last paragraph of the article, which referred to a person who would not be able to go out with his family and young children, go fishing or enjoy the the pleasures of Sunday because of the present circumstances and pressure from Tesco, which has disrupted his family life.

Mr. Purchase: I did not overlook the final paragraph and I shall come to it in due course. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important in the context of what is happening while the Bill is still being processed.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had listened to our warnings we would not now be in this position.

Mr. Purchase: Many a true word is spoken in jest. I welcome the hon. Lady's support, but she must be jesting because I did my best to warn many people about the Bill's inherent dangers. I coerced many of my hon. Friends who have great knowledge and experience in these matters to vote against Sunday opening. I am glad that the hon. Lady was with us on that occasion.
The heart of the matter is that many of my hon. Friends have been misled, not least by having sprung upon them the new Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. As I have said before, with the advent of deregulation, people's shopping wants should be fully met by the shops that will remain open until perhaps midnight. People who have said that because of their hours of work they cannot do their big shopping until Sunday morning, will be able to choose to do their shopping over a longer period. That will impose enormous strains on workers.
The Government's concessions on the Bill are completely inadequate and will not provide even slight worker protection. That is important because my hon. Friends did not know that the Deregulation and Contracting,Out Bill was on the way. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said that she believed that, in good faith, the Government would include worker protection in the Bill to enable her to support the six-hour option. As my hon. Friend has said, she is disillusioned and will certainly not vote for the Government's proposals.
I should like to refer to a paper prepared by the Small Business Research Centre at the department of applied economics at Cambridge university. It states:
In the absence of controls on trading hours, employment protection legislation is unlikely to provide effective guarantees for the rights of retail workers not to work on Sunday and to receive a wage premium for… working.
The article to which I referred earlier mentions a new twist, the issue of shift working at the Tesco distribution complex at Crick near Northampton. It tells us that in advance of the Bill slightly different patterns of trade are emerging that necessitate deliveries and night shift working at the warehouse. People will be required to work four Sundays in seven. What new twist will there be in 12 months or in two years? How will trade change after deregulation? None of us can be sure about that, but we know that all the shops involved will be competing for the same amount of trade over a greater number of hours. The

Small Business Research Centre paper states that we can expect increased Sunday trading to push up costs. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will push them up further.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend quoted from a report which says that people will be required to work four Sundays in seven. Town centre car parking on Sunday is currently free because the parks are little used. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill becomes law the attendants at those car parks will be required to work on Sunday, thereby being forced to change their working pattern?

Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend makes an eminently sensible point. What he predicts is bound to happen. The shift pattern at Tesco in Crick is part of a new annualised system of hours of work. Some hon. Members may not have heard of this new phenomenon. It simply means that instead of working a weekly or daily number of hours people will agree, under their new contracts, to work an annual number of hours. They may be called on to work them at any time and in any sequence whether or not that suits their social or family arrangements. That change was implemented in industry some time ago and has created difficulties and now it is to extend to the retail trade. That system of annualised hours will have to be used to meet the new pattern of trading.

Mr. James Paice: Is not the hon. Gentleman confusing the retail trade with the distribution system? I accept that they are part of the same company in his Tesco example, but does not he agree that distribution work on Sunday has been carried on for many years because of trading on Monday and has nothing to do with trading on Sunday? Tesco already operates this system in four of its eight warehouses and has undertaken not to force the system into operation. It is currently consulting through the normal employer-staff channels at Crick.

Mr. Purchase: I am grateful for that intervention because it leads me nicely to another point about Crick. The article, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, states:
Representatives of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers say that workers, who earn £4.23 an hour, were repeatedly assured that Sunday working would not be introduced.
This is a case of the biter bit because unfortunately USDAW has been playing an odd game. It is common knowledge that people behind USDAW have been promising the moon, but I am sure that that will be reversed. The small print of the deal that USDAW thinks that it has reached with the employers includes an employers' clause saying that should trading conditions change, they reserve the right to change the agreement. That agreement is not worth the paper on which it is written.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: USDAW's specific instruction had three points—
Total deregulation… No; Keep Sunday Special… No; 6 Hour Option… YES."—fOfficial Report, 8 December,1993; Vol. 234, c. 368.]
That is why we have reached our present position.

Mr. Purchase: I am sorry to say that USDAW will not emerge from this episode with an enhanced reputation.
However, what it does should not impinge on the judgment of the House about the welfare of people who work on Sunday.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that if any reputations are being damaged, it was not the annual conference of USDAW, but the executive who took that decision in isolation and in opposition to the conference?

Mr. Purchase: I am not a member of that union, but I have read the same document as my hon. Friend. I understand that the USDAW annual conference voted against what has become the Sunday Trading Bill and that the executive, no doubt after some pressure, changed its mind. Part of that pressure was, to use a phrase that one of my very illustrious Labour colleagues used in the House many years ago, something of an unholy alliance between certain very large retailers and a union obviously wanting to do the best for its members. I understand that, but the massive pressure on workers and their organisations means that USDAW's decision may be understandable.
Part of that pressure has manifested itself in the House. I understand that the alliance among employers to get the Bill through resulted in an average expenditure of £5,000 per hon. Member, in terms of the propaganda that they have sent us.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is healthy if unions and others can change their minds after listening to the arguments and seeing what happens in the House and in Committee? Would it not be equally healthy if hon. Members were prepared to change their minds, even at this stage, before the Bill becomes legislation?

Mr. Purchase: It would be a wonderful world if we were all open to persuasion. I am open to persuasion and if the Minister can satisfy me on many points, I shall reconsider the entire matter. The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have already referred to the fact that at least two critical changes have taken place since the initial vote in the House and I shall enumerate them again. The first was the publication of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and the second was the inability of the Opposition to make the Government put meaningful worker protection into the Bill.

Mr. Ray Powell: My hon. Friend mentioned the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, part of which refers to the extension of licences for shops to open perhaps 24 hours a day, six days a week providing 144 hours of shopping a week from Monday to Saturday. Therefore, there should now be no need for the Sunday Trading Bill. Perhaps the Minister should consider whether it would be better to abandon the Sunday Trading Bill and rely on total deregulation.

Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend, with his vast knowledge of the subject, hits the nail on the head. The Bill would be better abandoned; there is no question about that. However, the shopping needs of the entire population could well be met at hours convenient to them. The major shopping that households need to do can surely now be done between Monday and Saturday.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in effect, the pressing need for the large superstore managers is less offering service to their customers by opening on Sunday than increasing their market share? One has already heard stories of such superstores closing on a Monday, for example, or cutting out the two additional hours for late-night shopping on a Thursday because they can increase their market share and their profit by opening on a Sunday. It has nothing to do with facilitating their stores being open to the will of the customer, and everything to do with cashing in on the profit that they can make on that one day of the week.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we go too far down that road, hon. Members are straying wide of the debate, which is about enforceable contracts.

Mr. Purchase: I understand what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to speak to new clause 4.
I was trying to set the scene. I shall be brief in finishing that point, so that the Minister may get the flavour of what I am trying to achieve.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: On enforceable contracts, does my hon. Friend agree that there is no need for the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill because people could get their shopping perfectly adequately during the present legal hours, particularly if the supermarkets employed more people to staff their checkouts?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is now getting rather wide.

Mr. Purchase: It is almost irresistible, but I shall resist replying to my hon. Friends who raise valid points. The Bill offers workers little protection.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: My hon. Friend will be aware that the long title of the Bill precludes any amendments covering Scotland. Does he agree that it is absolutely inconceivable for major store chains such as Tesco to adopt different employment practices in England and Wales from those in Scotland? That is why I shall be in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend tonight.

Mr. Purchase: I take my hon. Friend's point which was well made. If, in its final form, the Bill were to include certain amendments, particularly in regard to premium pay, double time and time and a half, the need for my clause would be infinitely greater.
In the current economic circumstances, the protection of those hard-won concessions on premium times, expressed in a later amendment, will need to be underwritten by the strength of the law. Notwithstanding how little protection there is in the Bill, there are so many ways in which employers can bring pressure to bear on their employees, that an additional safeguard such as I am proposing could do no harm at all.
If the Minister is minded to say that the Bill is already well covered by the worker protection measures it contains, such as they are—and I have to keep qualifying them—in terms of closing the loopholes, in the light of our experience with the Tesco distribution centre, as reported in the newspapers, anything could happen as a result of changed working patterns and changes in demand that cannot be anticipated in financial terms. When one prepares a budget, it is foolish not to make a provision for


contingencies. When the bank asks what they are, one says, "I don't know. Although I do not know what will happen, I know that something will. That is the way of the world."

Dr. Tony Wright: My hon. Friend spoke about the inadequacies of the Bill's protection for workers. Has he considered that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will not only abolish weekday restrictions but enable the Secretary of State to make orders to abolish or amend anything in the Sunday Trading Bill? Is that not the greatest outrage?

Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend raises a wide and difficult question about the nature of our parliamentary democracy. I speak for many when I say that there is a considerable battle to be waged over that particular insult to the democratic process. My hon. Friend reinforces the need for as much packing, padding and support for workers' rights as we can devise in their favour.
5.30 pm
In present market conditions, demand for labour is much less than its supply. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that wages councils were needed because even in times of relative balance between labour supply and demand, shop workers in particular were exceedingly vulnerable to low pay, poor conditions and little in the way of benefits. Nothing has changed.
It is selfish of people to demand that others work on Sunday just to meet their wants.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am at a loss to understand why some of my hon. Friends—particularly on the Front Bench—and trade union leaders delude themselves that the Government, having abolished wages councils for low-paid workers, will correct any mistakes that they made when preparing the Bill and will include any form of employment protection?

Mr. Purchase: I understand that the precursor to making corrections is an apology—and it is not in the Government's nature to apologise. They never apologise for anything, however much harm is done to people. I suspect that my hon. Friend is right in thinking that no corrections will be made.
How do we make a plea to our trade union colleagues? Most Opposition Members have been trade unionists for many years. In my case, I am proud to say that I have been a union member for 35 years. I have seen many union leaders come and go. There is acute pressure on USDAW officials to—dare I use the term?—cave in to the major stores lobby.

Mr. Lord: Although it may be difficult sometimes to accept this, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House care deeply about workers, particularly in respect of this issue. As constituency Members of Parliament, we have evidence already of pressure being brought to bear on shop workers over Sunday trading. Sometimes it is anecdotal, and sometimes the people who write to us ask for their identities not to be revealed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a employee wants to object to Sunday working, it is difficult to do so without in some way jeopardising his or her employment? We cannot make a fair assessment of the situation, so the only satisfactory solution is for stores to remain shut.

Mr. Purchase: I am conscious of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. A newspaper article published on 15 January reported a spokesman for a Peterborough-based store saying:
Mrs. Love was not sacked for refusing to work on a Sunday but because she refused to move to another store under the terms of her contract.
That is just the kind of situation that we must make watertight. An employer might say, "You are perfectly within your rights not to work on Sunday, but we shall want you to move to another store 25 or 30 miles from your home. You must be there half-an-hour earlier."

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not significant that such examples of discrimination are coming to light at a time when the stores are clearly on their best behaviour, because they know that they are being watched and scrutinised, and that any examples of discrimination will be publicised? What will happen when, having made a massive investment in Sunday trading, stores are able to do precisely as they want—as the Government imply that they will? What will happen then to the touching faith of USDAW and others, who imagine that a Government who got rid of wages councils will look after workers' interests?

Mr. Purchase: I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention.
Although trade unions represent 250,000, 300,000 or 400,000 employees, 1.5 million others look to the House for protection. I give ground to no one in terms of my trade union membership, the union work that I have done and the workers for whom I have been responsible. I have an honourable record, if I say so myself. The House is given the task of being the trade union for the 1.5 million workers who do not have direct protection. We cannot give that job away, and we cannot duck responsibility for looking after those people.
Whatever the Minister says, I do not believe that the Bill will look after those 1.5 million people. The right hon. Gentleman may argue that new clause 4 would not do so, but at least it attempts to set in concrete the punishments that could be imposed by a tribunal.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill would not be before the House in its present form had members of the Government and Opposition Front Benches not joined in trying to thwart the will of the people of this country?

Mr. Purchase: I hear and understand the hon. Gentleman, but no one would expect me to comment.
I ask the House to acknowledge the importance of right hon. and hon. Members acting as the shop stewards of the 1.5 million workers not covered by the deals, which I believe were the result of collusion, entered into by major traders and, foolishly in my estimation, trade unions. I shall not go further, because it would not help the cause one little bit to do so. There has been collusion. Our duty is to ensure that those 1.5 million for whom we must act take control of our conscience so that we vote in favour of worker protection. If we cannot get that protection, which is so vital to their cause, we should vote against the Bill.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) made a powerful case for the new clause. I hope that it will commend itself to everyone


in the House. It is a belt-and-braces new clause and—no doubt the Minister will say this—reinforces a principle that purportedly is in the Bill anyway.
The truth is, as the hon. Gentleman has told us, that the employment protection provisions in the Bill are limited. As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said, there is so much concern among workers in this country about the systematic erosion of their rights that the latest proposed legislation comes as a further blow to them. They are right to be apprehensive and concerned about the erosion of their rights.
The new clause seeks to ensure that nothing that is in the scope of the Bill can be written out of it by an employer forcing a new contract with an employee. The new clause is worth while, because it will add a double safeguard to people working in the big shops.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East cited the infamous Crick case involving Tesco. I want to return to that briefly, because it is important, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) intimated earlier, that the House should understand, if that is happening now, how much worse it will be when the Bill has been enacted and the great stores and shops know that their actions cannot then be put under the microscope by the Chamber. Fears that Sunday trading will have a ripple effect will then increase.
Eighty workers staged a lightning 24-hour walkout at Tesco's warehouse at Crick, near Daventry, in protest. They say that it was about new working arrangements and being lied to by the company. In a changeover to a system of working based on annualised hours, workers asked repeatedly whether Sunday work was included. They were told categorically that it was not.
Ten days ago, workers from Crick rang to tell me what had happened to them. I advised them to speak to The Guardian and other newspapers, where the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred has subsequently appeared. It is right that the public and the House should know in detail what has already happened as a result of the proposed legislation, and the assumptions that are already being made by major employers.
Shift cycles recently issued to those workers show that they would have to work three Sundays in a new seven-week working cycle. If they want overtime, it could be four Sundays. The annual hours proposal was rejected initially, with only seven of the workers at Crick voting for it and 1,550 against. A Tesco worker subsequently commented:
I need family time, and I need the money premium pay brought me when I could work extra hours during the week"—
not on Sundays.
When am I going to see my kids? How can I get away on holiday?
The workers say that they need their premium pay. Their present pay, as we have heard, is about £4.23 per hour. Tesco has also increased the length of shift work in some cases from eight to 10 hours. How, then, can those men and women live a reasonably normal life? It is not fair that low-paid night workers should lose a further measure of their freedom. That is why I remain extremely concerned about the lack of employee protection available for Sunday workers, which, under the Bill, includes only shopworkers, not workers in warehouses, in transport or in distribution.
Let the House recall, as it considers the worth of the new clause, that legal aid is not available for industrial tribunal applications, that the current industrial tribunal system is heavily biased towards the employer, that remedies that are awarded are always totally inadequate, and that applications to industrial tribunals are subject to delay.
The burden of proof of discrimination for refusing to work on Sundays lies with the employee, and it is extremely difficult to satisfy. That is why we need to add as much as we possibly can to the Bill, which takes away so much that workers expect to have as their right—not to have to work on a Sunday. For that reason, I hope that this belt-and-braces new clause, moved so well by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, will be accepted by the House.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I thought that it might help if I intervened at this point, because the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) directed a couple of questions at me.
This is something of a lengthy reprise of what was a short debate in Committee on the same new clause. I promised to consider the issue carefully with expert legal advice. I have done so. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman's general fear, as indicated in the wording of his new clause rather than the animadversions that he made on it, that an employee might be bribed, cozened or persuaded to contract out of his rights under the Bill, particularly under schedule 3, are groundless. The wording of the schedule is proof against that.
5.45 pm
The hon. Gentleman raised a particular case—if I follow him correctly, I think I know the one—about Tesco and transport workers. That is not covered by the Bill and the schedule. We debated that kind of question on the last day of the Committee of the whole House.
When the hon. Gentleman spoke to the new clause before and then withdrew it, I said that I hoped that he would come to see me with any loopholes that he thought might exist and that might have to be closed were those rights to be absolutely assured. He did not come to see me, so I presumed that he did not have any, and that it was only a general worry.
I understand the general worry, but I have now taken legal advice. It does not exist in the form that the hon. Gentleman expects. People cannot give up their rights under the proposed legislation, most particularly under schedule 3, by signing documents that would then enable them to be dismissed, where otherwise they would have been able to opt out of Sunday working.
However, it seems to me that there may be one potential difficulty with the right not to suffer detriment under paragraph 10 of the schedule. It is a complicated point. I have not yet managed to find suitable words and have them drafted. I should like to have done so by this stage.
The hon. Gentleman's new clause does not meet the point. It covers only what is covered already. It misses the bit that I think is exposed. I hope that he will accept that on this issue at least—the inalienability of the rights under schedule 3 and the Bill—we are of like mind. I want to be quite sure that the full rights are there and cannot be lost by any particular agreement.
I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House an assurance that the Government intend to table a suitable amendment in another place to cover the point that I think


is exposed, and any other point that he can convince me —or get others to convince me—exists that I have not yet seen and which can be covered in another place.

Mr. Alton: The Minister adverted a moment ago to the omission of transport workers, warehouse workers and others from the employment protection provisions in the Bill. Is it his intention to widen the scope at any stage to include those workers?

Mr. Lloyd: We discussed that. It covers shopworkers —people whose job is in or about a shop. We had a considerable debate on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on that issue. I remain of the view that it is a broad protection for those who work in or about a shop, but it does not extend to workers beyond that.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister has been generous in saying that he will seek to remove any ambiguity in respect of the ability of an employee to barter away his rights. I press him in respect of the narrow definition of a shopworker. It is clear that a number of people whose livelihood is directly concerned in shop working are likely to have their position adversely affected as a result of the provisions of the Bill.
Will he therefore be prepared to consider, although he said that it has been canvassed to some extent in Committee, giving a somewhat broader definition of "shopworker" to cover those who will certainly be penalised if the Bill goes through?

Mr. Lloyd: I have no plans to do that. The people referred to in the debate are, for instance, delivery drivers, many of whom already deliver on Sunday for Monday's sale.
We discussed the matter at length in Committee; we did not merely touch on it. Such action would not be practicable, even if it were desirable—and I do not think it would be either desirable or right.

Mr. Cryer: What amendment does the Minister intend to table in the other place to deal with the omission that he perceives in the schedule to which he referred? In what way would that amendment differ from, and be superior to, new clause 4? If new clause 4 merely spells out what is implied in other parts of the Bill, why should it not be included? It could improve the Bill, rather than detracting from it.

Mr. Lloyd: I see no point in inserting in a Bill verbiage that gives no extra protection, power or authority; that only confuses the position. In this instance, I said that I thought a loophole existed—a small loophole, which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East had not had in mind, and which was not covered by his new clause.
I have undertaken to introduce, in another place, amendments or new clauses that fill that loophole and any others that may be identified between then and now. I will not, however, undertake to introduce belts where we already have perfectly adequate braces.

Dr. Wright: Is not the greatest loophole of all the fact that, under the deregulation proposals that the House is now considering, a Minister—having established that the Bill's provisions for worker protection, inadequate though they are, constitute a burden on business—can make an order and sweep away all those provisions? He can sweep away, for instance, the six-hour provisions, by means of

the power to make orders that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill provides. If the Minister is prepared to confirm that, will he also assure the House that that order-making power will not be used in relation to this Bill?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly do not intend any order-making power to be used to diminish the rights that we have carefully and laboriously put into this Bill. The deregulation Bill has begun its passage through the House; I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman, and he cannot tell me, in what shape it will end up and how far its powers will extend. I am certain, however, that if it is to be used to alter other legislation, it will have to go through the processes already outlined in it.
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how much of this Bill could be changed by the use of processes in the deregulation Bill, because I have not the expertise. I can tell him, however, that we intend the rights that we are including in the Bill to be there—that is why we are including them—and to remain there. I want to ensure that they are completely effective and contain no loopholes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps the Minister will explain what he has just said about the failure of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) to recognise the loophole. Are we dealing with the issue that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House or not? Are we dealing with another issue, which the Minister is convinced is a loophole? We need to know that.
Moreover, if—as the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) suggested—a Minister has the power, by means of an order, to destroy existing provisions almost with the stroke of a pen, what good is that to workers? Are the Government going to bluff them, saying, "You have safeguards," although a Minister need only sign an order for those safeguards to be ended?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman cares, at his leisure, to read schedule 3(10), he will see the area where I believe a loophole may exist. It may be possible to make arrangements where an individual suffers detriment through deciding that he does not want to work on Sundays. There is no question about the existence of his right to opt in or out, and to avoid dismissal; the issue of detriment, however, is complicated and, for that reason, I have not yet secured wording that I consider deals with it satisfactorily.
I have exposed to the House a problem that may well exist, before examining it closely and producing a solution. I have, however, told the House that, if there is indeed a problem—as I believe there is—I intend to find a solution.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the Minister conceive that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) has raised an extraordinarily important point? If the protections provided by the Government—however inadequate we consider them—can be removed as easily as my hon. Friend suggests, is that not important?
As the Minister is dealing with this point, can he not find out speedily whether, under the current provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, a Minister can remove the protection in this Bill?

Mr. Lloyd: No Minister can simply remove items of earlier legislation in that way; he has no power to do so


freely, on his own. The hon. Gentleman, however, has asked a reasonable question. As I have explained, I am familiar in general terms with the deregulation Bill. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific point, I think—with the advice of the Chair particularly in mind—that it may be possible to return to the matter on a later group of amendments, when I may be better informed.

Dr. Wright: I well understand why the Minister should seem surprised and shocked by the suggestion that a Minister, simply by order, could sweep away the Bill's provisions. That, however, is precisely the power being claimed for Ministers in the deregulation Bill.

Mr. Lloyd: That is right—[Laughter.]—but the hon. Gentleman said it. The order must come before the House, and the protection must be construed as other than necessary protection. I regard this as necessary protection. The definition of necessary protection makes me a little reluctant to be drawn to the extent that I should like by interventions about another Bill that I do not manage. I am being entirely frank with the House. I can only say that it would be more sensible if I returned to the matter later in the debate.
As for the specific rights that the Bill gives employees, I want them to be completely watertight in the terms of the Bill, so that they cannot be accidentally lost through an agreement unwisely made by an employee, or through some other act on the part of that employee or his employer leading unintentionally to that result—or, indeed, doing so intentionally. The rights, as contained in the Bill, cannot be given away even if it is the intention of both parties at the time to do so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give an assurance that only an affirmative resolution will be involved? He has said that Ministers cannot take such action, but we in Northern Ireland have a sad history of what Ministers can do. They can change, change and change. We also know what happens to prayers in the House. I am glad that prayers to the Almighty are more effective than prayers in the House; otherwise, I would be permanently out of business.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give assurances about the final outcome of a Bill that is only just beginning its passage through the House—a Bill, moreover, that I do not sponsor, and with whose policy my Department does not deal. However, as I have said, I hope to be able to tell the House rather more later this evening.

Mr. Ray Powell: I support new clause 4. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) did not mention industrial tribunals in depth and detail because he had many other matters to mention.
It is necessary to refer to a report on the Sunday Trading Bill by S.F. Deakin, fellow of Peterhouse college and lecturer in law at the university of Cambridge, and K.D. Ewing, professor of public law at King's college, university of London. They say:
The sanctions available to employees who are unfairly victimised for refusing Sunday work are inadequate for a number of reasons.


(a) The Bill would replace criminal sanctions (fines against retailers who open in breach of the law) with weaker civil sanctions (damages and re-employment) administered by industrial tribunals.
(b) The onus will be on employees themselves to assert employment protection rights before industrial tribunals; these rights will be very difficult to enforce for the following reasons."

6 pm
In order to put them on the record, I must read out the five different sections. The most important is as follows:

"(i) Legal aid is not available before industrial tribunals, while legal representation is not, in practice, available to most employees who do not have access to trade union support;
(ii) There are significant delays in the hearing of industrial tribunal cases which will discourage many workers from making claims, and the Bill makes no provision for this point to be met by the availability of interim relief to employees whose rights are infringed;
(iii) The burden of proving that the reason for a dismissal or other detriment is the employee's refusal to do Sunday work will rest throughout on the employee, and will be difficult to overcome."

Mr. Peter Lloyd: That is absolutely and completely wrong. The burden of proof lies on the employer. The Bill refers to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which was put on the statute book by a Labour Government, makes it perfectly clear that the employee has to show only that he is dismissed; it is for the employer to show why he was dismissed and to show that that reason was a fair reason for dismissal. The document from which the hon. Gentleman quotes is wrong. I understand that it is his bible in these matters, but it is not accurate.

Mr. Powell: With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take the advice of two professors, and I would accept the professors' advice far more than I would accept advice from the Minister.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I noticed that the Minister did not intervene in respect of the other advice of the learned professors: that, as a result of the ability of the employer —the respondent—to prolong proceedings, which in any event take quite a long time, by adjournment and otherwise, it is likely that, as a result of the disproportion of power between the employee, or former employee, and the employer, the employee will be frightened away long before the end of the process. As the Government well know, the protection that they purport to give is, in practice, nugatory.

Mr. Powell: I accept the advice of my hon. Friend, in his learned capacity, on those issues.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I think that that remark was directed at me. I do not intervene every time that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) gets something wrong, because I think that other hon. Members should get a word in edgeways sometimes. However, most cases of unfair dismissal and unfair treatment of that type do not reach the tribunal, simply because two thirds of them are settled well beforehand by the employer, who, knowing that he is wrong, would prefer them not to go to the tribunal. It is therefore simply not true that the law is ineffective.
Representation will be similar in such a case to representation in any other case that goes to a tribunal.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We cannot very well have intervention on intervention. Mr. Powell.

Mr. Powell: I shall continue, to ensure that the quotation goes on the record, and I will return to the Minister:

"(iv) On the evidence of current practice, an industrial tribunal is hardly ever likely to order the re-employment of an employee who has been unfairly dismissed;
(v) Where an industrial tribunal orders compensation, current practice indicates that damages will not be set at a level designed to deter employers from taking similar action in the future; damages will most likely be a small fraction of the legal maximum which an industrial tribunal is empowered to award to an unfairly dismissed employee;
(vi) An industrial tribunal will have no power to order the promotion of a worker who has been subjected to a detriment by being denied promotion for refusing Sunday work."

I hope that if the Minister has not listened to what I have said, he will read it and perhaps give an explanation. All Members of the House are fully aware that even if a worker wants to protest and go to an industrial tribunal, the provision gives him or her no chances of emerging financially better off or protected in any way, shape or form.
There is no provision for legal aid. How much legal advice could a shopworker, earning about £2 an hour, afford for an appearance before an industrial tribunal? The chances of affording that and winning the case are remote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to employment protection, which is a very important part of new clause 4. Many promises were made to us in Committee. We are now told that we will not have an answer tonight, but that an answer might be forthcoming when the Bill goes to another place, if it goes to another place. The Minister is pushing it off, but he is not prepared to give a definite answer about how he will protect those workers on a Sunday.
The new clause would do much to assist. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East referred to an article in The Guardian. I do not want to repeat what he said, but I think that it is time to consider carefully what is happening. We speak about sleazy deals in Government circles; I do not know whether those sleazy deals are now flowing over into the trade union movement. Some trade union leaders will be as renowned in the 1990s as Jimmy Thomas was for his role in the 1930s.
I know the feelings that Torvill and Dean must experience, having performed with honesty and hard work and finding the contest rigged. The 22 million people who viewed the skating on television this week have reached their verdict of indignation, and that is what will happen tonight. Hon. Members will show their contempt for the sleazy deals of those people who enjoy champagne and caviare breakfasts and lunches or Savoy dinners.
We could give details of what has happened during the past couple of months. If that is what trade union leaders believe to be the answer, after 15 years of Thatcherism, I have no wish to identify myself with their contemptuous, phoney deals.
I say that because the role of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has been mentioned in great depth and detail. USDAW has been committed to the Keep Sunday Special campaign since 1985, and it was committed to the campaign in the 1986 Shops Bill debate.
I have been a member of USDAW since I was a shopworker at the age of 16. I have always respected the union and worked for it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, I have always been

committed to the trade union movement. I have been sponsored by USDAW for the past 15 years, and am now a senior member of it.
However, the union's executive council recently took a decision that was not the decision of its 300,000 members —who, in May last year, decided unanimously to support the Keep Sunday Special campaign and my Bill. It was referred to as the Powell Bill, but it was sponsored and supported by Keep Sunday Special and, indeed, by USDAW. Without consulting the hon. Members who are sponsored by USDAW, the annual delegates' meeting or anyone else, the executive council took a decision. Therefore, Conservative Members were correct to attach the defeat of the Keep Sunday Special proposals to USDAW, because USDAW had a responsibility for that defeat.
We have to wonder what is happening when we see the sleazy deals that were done only last week between trade union leaders and Tesco workers. I also wonder whether a Bailey bridge was erected over the rift between the usual channels in respect of the Sunday Trading Bill. What happened has been passing strange, to say the least. I spent 10 years in the Whips office and this is the first time to my knowledge that there is to be a three-line Whip on Report but a free vote on Third Reading. It does not make sense, and I am sure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he should relate his remarks to new clause 4, which deals with agreements between shopworkers and employers.

Mr. Powell: With all due respect, I was just coming back to that aspect of the new clause.
Members of all parties will appreciate that the support that we are receiving from this side of the House for certain issues is a farce, and perhaps a rigged farce. I shall conclude my remarks, and I know that you will be relieved to hear that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In The Guardian on 7 December 1993, Hugo Young referred to "Sunday Trading Bill Tests." He wrote:
How many Labour MPs have had their brains so addled by years of defeat that they will surrender to one of the least convincing promises ever made by Capital to Labour?
I am sure that that applies to some of our trade union leaders, too.

Mr. Tom Cox: The new clause has opened up the heart of the debate. The Minister's speech and the way in which he dealt with interventions from members of all parties made it clear that he has not done his homework. He could not deal satisfactorily with any of the points made by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) who moved the new clause.
Hon. Members know that the matters of the greatest concern are the rights and protection of workers. We know from day-to-day contact with our constituents that the people who work in the retail trade are invariably the most vulnerable. I listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) who touched on an important matter. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that if a worker was not happy with his terms and conditions of employment, and if the employer believed that the worker was going to become a little


difficult, it would not be long before the employer would be advising the worker what he should do because he—the employer—did not intend to change the working patterns.
Comments have been made about the abolition of the wages councils. I shall not deal with that issue in detail, but there are already reports about the effect of that abolition, which took place only a few months ago. We know what is happening, but Ministers are making no attempt to reconsider. They are not saying that they were perhaps too hasty and did not consider the issue in the necessary depth or that they should seek to reintroduce protection for workers. It is to the credit of many Conservative Members that they are as worried as Labour Members about the lack of protection for working people.
6.15 pm
I shall cite an example to highlight the problem and perhaps the Minister will respond to it. A lady constituent came to see me. She has worked full time for a firm for seven years and is quite happy to continue working for that firm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, the big companies are behaving themselves at the moment because they do not want any more adverse publicity than is already surfacing. The woman to whom I referred assumed that the company was also happy for her to continue in its employ, but she was called into the manager's office one day and told that the working patterns were being changed. She was offered part-time employment or redundancy, neither of which she wanted. Where is her protection as a worker? She is being forced to work part time or leave the firm altogether. That is but one example of the type of cases that are worrying many hon. Members.
The Minister did not respond in any way to many of the issues that were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred to industrial tribunals. There are any amount of tribunals, but, even if people receive legal aid, they are rarely satisfied with the outcome. Those of us who represent constituencies in the big cities know that people who believe that they are being forced to pay extortionate rent increases by rent assessment officers rarely win the cases that they take to the tribunal, even though they have a legal framework in which to present them. The Minister has not dealt satisfactorily with the issues raised by hon. Members, irrespective of party.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We have debated tribunals at least twice during our consideration of the Bill. Tribunals can be most effective when employees make use of them and, clearly, Labour Members believe that when it suits their purpose. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who described tribunals as wholly useless, has tabled a later amendment on premium pay, which relies on industrial tribunals to reinforce it.
Does the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) think that his hon. Friend is being absurd, ridiculous and stupid in trying to have his amendment made effective by that route or does it suit Opposition Members to condemn tribunals when they do not like the rule and to applaud them when they do?

Mr. Cox: That is an interesting point and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore will be able to deal with it himself when he speaks to his amendment. It is regrettable that the Minister should seek to introduce a party slant

because, as he knows, while we have been debating the new clause, hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the lack of protection for working people.
Of course there should be tribunals and of course the people who go to them sometimes win, but in the vast majority of cases the person loses, because the odds are stacked against him or her. Whether such people get legal aid is obviously important, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore said, that will not apply in the cases that we are discussing.
We are entitled to expect from the Minister, not at some distant future date or in the other place but tonight, before Third Reading, a suitable and acceptable reply to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said about new clause 4.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I shall speak briefly to the new clause because it appears in my name as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). It has become clear from the debate that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the lack of worker protection on the face of the Bill. That is the central issue.
Major changes are being imposed on the lives of millions of working people in this country because of Sunday trading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East tellingly pointed out, most people who work in shops are represented in any possible dispute with their employers by no one other than Members of Parliament. It is our responsibility to speak for those who are not in a position to speak for themselves as a uniform or united group. It is our responsibility—indeed, our duty—to strengthen with the will of the House people in such confrontations, who are inevitably weak because they are individuals.
I sincerely hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will find it in their hearts to support new clause 4.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Like the leadership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, I believe in the essential goodness of human nature. Like them, I believe that the vast expenditure by the stores on cars and on lunches at the Dorchester was all incurred in the public interest, and because the stores have the interests of the workers at heart. Scarcely a moment of the day passes without the senior management of Tesco and Sainsbury saying to themselves, "What can we do now for our workers, poor chaps?"
If, perchance, my faith in human nature is not borne out in practice, I shall be reminded of the poor Scottish pastor in a story that our good friends from Northern Ireland probably know already. After his death, rather to his surprise, the pastor found himself not in heaven but in hell, with the flames licking round him. He looked up to the good Lord and said "O Lord, I didnae ken, I didnae ken." and the good Lord, in his infinite wisdom and mercy said, "Ye ken the noo." I expect that a little while after the shops have been given the powers granted in the Bill, our good friends in USDAW will make their plea to the House, saying, "We did not know, we did not know; our confidence was misplaced."
Initially, the Government did not wish to introduce any measure of employee protection—that was their main agenda—but, as a result of the concern expressed, they introduced what they claimed was some protection for


workers. However, anyone who practises in industrial tribunals, as I have done on both sides, knows that the protection afforded is small indeed. Many shop workers will not be protected by their trade unions in any event, and they will be somewhat intimidated by the procedures, which can be spun out over a long period by wealthy employers who are usually legally represented and who know all the rules.
The poor litigant in person will lose heart as he sees the time slipping away, even if that person has sufficient commitment and is sufficiently gifted to take and continue his case—or, as is more likely, her case. As we are speaking of shop workers it is more likely to be a woman who goes to the tribunal, and she is more likely to be overawed and intimidated—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is a sexist remark.

Mr. Anderson: It is more likely to be a woman because more woman are employed in shops.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that a woman was more likely to be intimidated.

Mr. Anderson: I am sorry. If I unintentionally made a remark that proved offensive to the hon. Lady, I unreservedly withdraw it.
We know that the amount of compensation likely to be awarded by industrial tribunals is relatively small, and only in the rarest of cases will a tribunal reinstate a worker in the job from which he or she was dismissed. Therefore, there will be an enormous temptation for major stores, for whom the compensation likely to be awarded is small change, to get rid of any worker they think is being difficult and to go for an easygoing and complacement work force. I therefore reject as wholly inadequate the gift that the Government offer. As we say in some parts of Swansea, "Timeo Danaoset dona ferentes."
Furthermore, we should consider not only the Government's relatively last-minute insertion of the so-called employee protection provisions, but their attitude in other areas. I am thinking not of the wages councils, which some of my hon. Friends have already mentioned, but of the spirit and practice of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which is making a bonfire of controls. It would surely be consistent with the spirit of that Bill to remove the unfair burden that weighs upon employers.
With all due respect to the Minister, I should have thought that he would know what the Government seek to do in the deregulation Bill, and would realise the direct potential relevance of that Bill to what the Government seek to give in the Bill before us. Clearly if he were doing his job properly he would have been briefed about the potential relevance of the other Bill, so that he could tell us whether even the minor protection that the Government purport to give here is likely to be wholly illusory in practice, because what they give in this Bill they can easily take away tomorrow by using one of the orders under the deregulation Bill.
The Minister was wrong not to come here adequately briefed, but I hope that by the end of the debate he will be able to tell us clearly not only about the Government's current intention—that will probably disappear in smoke as soon as the Bill is passed—but that in no way can orders

under the deregulation Bill be applied to the Bill before us in such a way as to allow the Government to take away later what they are offering now.

Rev. William McCrea: Many hon Members on both sides of the House have expressed genuine and deep concern about the protection of workers. It cannot be said that one side is more concerned than the other. I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. He asked us to reject new clause 4, saying that in another place the Government may introduce a provision to close a loophole in paragraph 10 of schedule 3. However, he gave us no indication of the substance of such an amendment. He is therefore asking us to throw aside the substance of new clause 4 for something about which we do not have a clue. The Minister said that it was not desirable, at the stroke of a pen, to cast existing provisions aside. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's good faith, but, as he knows, his promise will not bind his successors. We should not be carried away by such a promise.
6.30 pm
I should like to refer to a matter that puzzles me. The Minister probably approaches this problem with a perspective and a philosophy different from those of other hon. Members, including Opposition Members. On the question of the protection of workers, I should like someone to explain what happens to an Opposition Member when he or she moves from the Back Benches to the Front Bench. The attitude of such people seems to change. They become willing to give Ministers the nod and to accept undesirable legislation. It seems that something dramatic happens: there is a road to Damascus conversion. The people of the United Kingdom deserve to be told why Opposition Front-Bench Members nod when a Minister gives them an assurance. If they were still on the Back Benches they would raise many of the matters that still trouble ordinary people.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman should be careful what he says. Many Opposition Front-Bench Members have consistently voted against this legislation and in favour of worker protection. My colleagues and I have done so and will continue to do so on Third Reading.

Rev. William McCrea: The nub of the matter is that we should not be confronted with this problem if the Opposition Front Bench had taken a stand against Sunday trading.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: What about your own lot?

Rev. William McCrea: As I said earlier, I do not understand the apparent unanimity between the two Front Benches.

Ms Ruddock: It should not be necessary to remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision was taken by the whole House, with extraordinary attendance, on a free vote. This was not a Labour Front-Bench decision, and I deeply resent the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there has been collusion between Labour Front-Bench Members and the Government. I responded positively to the Minister's new clauses 1 and 2 because they were introduced as a result of points that we raised in Committee. It was most appropriate that I should acknowledge the Minister's positive response.

Rev. William McCrea: I remember the incident very well. To the best of my knowledge, Hansard will show that on that occasion the hon. Lady voted with the Government.

Ms Ruddock: On a free vote.

Rev. William McCrea: Yes, on a free vote. But this matter goes to the very heart of the industrial life of the community and of workers' rights. It is not good enough for us to tell the people that we are really concerned about workers' rights, but, at the same time, to support legislation that will remove many of those rights. The pious pleading from the Opposition Front Bench cannot be accepted.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way, other hon. Members will have to resume their seats.

Rev. William McCrea: I must make it abundantly clear that the charge of collusion has been made by many hon. Members, and not just from this side of the House.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The hon. Gentleman's uncalled-for charge will be refuted from the Opposition Front Bench, with very good reason. There is no reason for such an allegation, from whatever part of the House. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how often in the past 10 years he has gone through the Lobbies to keep that lot afloat?

Rev. William McCrea: I can assure the House that I shall use every opportunity for a free vote in the best interests of the people who sent me here. That is very different from the attitude of Opposition Members. The Bill strikes at the very heart of workers' rights. A basic right stems from the fact that the Lord's day is a special day. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) should be defending people's rights.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Every amendment put forward in Committee for the purpose of protecting workers' rights and wages came from the Opposition, and when our proposals were voted on Members on the Government side voted categorically, totally and in unison against them.

Rev. William McCrea: As I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I shall accept what the hon. Lady says. However, Sunday trading is the basic problem, and these other matters are peripheral. Many hon. Members from all parts of the House have stood side by side in support of Sunday trading. Some of them ought to know better.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are dealing specifically with new clause 4. It seems to me that the debate is becoming very wide indeed. Hon. Members are doing re-runs on who voted and why. Let us return to the new clause.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has made an absurd allegation about how Ulster Democratic Unionist party Members vote. The hon. Gentleman would do well to consult Hansard to discover how we voted on questions concerning the miners and on matters of confidence—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing precisely what I said should not be done.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rev. William McCrea: I do not propose to go down that road, but the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) should examine the voting record of my hon. Friends and me. It is one of which we are rightly proud. Others will have to answer for their decisions. I shall certainly speak for myself and answer to my constituents for my votes on this legislation.

Mr. Alton: I support the hon. Gentleman's case. In the Standing Committee I represented the minority parties. After consultation with the other minority parties, I tabled amendments on employment protection. Those parties have overwhelmingly supported the new clause now before the House. I hope that all their hon. Members will go through the Lobby in support of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase).

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention.
In conclusion, new clause 4 is important and it is worthy of our consideration. I do not believe that we should withdraw it on the promise that something may be done in another place. The House should support it tonight.

Mr. Purchase: In the light of events. I am not satisfied with the assurances given by the Minister. I apologise to him for not attending the meeting that he kindly offered. I assure him that that was entirely due to a misunderstanding between me and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. However, I do not think that if I had gone to see him I would have been reassured on the substantive points that he wished me to bring to him. Just a few days ago, you assured me that there were no loopholes. Today, a few days later, you come and say that there may be one. I feel that belt and braces—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that he is addressing me and not the Minister.

Mr. Purchase: I apologise for not using the correct terminology, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will finish the point and then conclude.
I apologise to the Minister for not attending the meeting, but it would not have been possible for me to be reassured on any of the substantive points that he asked me to bring to him. I am not a lawyer, but instinctively, intuitively and from my industrial experience I know that all employers find ways of minimising costs in the face of any law that this Government or any Government introduce. I therefore intend to press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology. I should have liked to talk matters over with him. It would have been useful to go through several of the matters that he raised which troubled him. I did not promise him last time that there was no loophole. I said that I saw no loophole, but that I was taking legal advice. We have found a loophole in paragraph 10 of schedule 3. The hon. Gentleman's new clause does not cover it. That is why I offered to bring back suitable wordings in another place. I still intend to do that. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will reject the hon. Gentleman's new clause because it does not do what needs to be done.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 312.

Division No. 140]
[6.41pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dowd, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Alton, David
Eagle, Ms Angels


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Enright, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Etherington, Bill


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Austin-Walker, John
Faulds, Andrew


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beggs, Roy
Foulkes, George


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart
Galbraith, Sam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gapes, Mike


Benton, Joe
Gerrett, John


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Berry, Dr. Roger
George, Bruce


Betts, Clive
Gilberth, Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Godsiff, Rogar


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grocott, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gunnell, John


Burden, Richard
Hain, Peter


Byers, Stephen
Hall, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Hanson, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heppell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cann, Jamie
Hinchliffe, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hutton, John


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Corston, Ms Jean
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cousins, Jim
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cox, Tom
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Denham, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Donohoe, Brian H.
Litherland, Robert





Livingstone, Ken
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Randall, Stuart


Llwyd, Elfyn
Raynsford, Nick


Loyden, Eddie
Redmond, Martin


Lynne, Ms Liz
Reid, Dr John


McAllion, John
Rendel, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McCrea, Rev William
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Macdonald, Calum
Rooker, Jeff


McFall, John
Rooney, Terry


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McLeish, Henry
Rowlands, Ted


Maclennan, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


McMaster, Gordon
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maginnis, Ken
Short, Clare


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Michael, Alun
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Straw, Jack


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tyler, Paul


Mowlam, Marjorie
Vaz, Keith


Mudie, George
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Mullin, Chris
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


O'akes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walley, Joan


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Hara, Edward
Wicks, Malcolm


Olner, William
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Brian


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Wise, Audrey


Pickthall, Colin
Worthington, Tony


Pike, Peter L.
Wray, Jimmy


Pope, Greg
Wright, Dr Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Ken Purchase and


Primarolo, Dawn
Ms Glenda Jackson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Bates, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ashby, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Atkins, Robert
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Booth, Hartley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boswell, Tim






Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Elletson, Harold
Knapman, Roger


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Legg, Barry


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fry, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gallie, Phil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Madel, Sir David





Maitland, Lady Olga
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Major, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mans, Keith
Soames, Nicholas


Marlow, Tony
Speed, Sir Keith


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spink, Dr Robert


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spring, Richard


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sproat, Iain


Merchant, Piers
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mills, Iain
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stephen, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stem, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Streeter, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Sweeney, Walter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sykes, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Norris, Steve
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thomason, Roy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Ward, John


Richards, Rod
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Waterson, Nigel


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Watts, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whitney, Ray


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Whittingdale, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wilkinson, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Sims, Roger
Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

SHORT TITLE, REPEALS, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 50 in page 2, line 25, at end insert
'section [Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning]'.

No. 51, in page 2, line 25, at end insert
'section [Construction of certain leases and agreements]'.—[Mr. Patnick.]

New Schedule

Amendment made: No. 49, a new schedule,

LOADING AND UNLOADING AT LARGE SHOPS

ON SUNDAY MORNING

Meaning of "large shop"

1. In this Schedule "large shop" has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to this Act.

Consent required for early Sunday loading and unloading

2. The occupier of a large shop in respect of which a notice under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to this Act has effect shall not load or unload, or permit any other person to load or unload, goods from a vehicle at the shop before 9 a.m. on Sunday in connection with the trade or business carried on in the shop, unless the loading or unloading is carried on—

(a) with the consent of the local authority for the area in which the shop is situated granted under this Schedule, and
(b) in accordance with any conditions subject to which that consent is granted.

3. A consent under this Schedule may be granted subject to such conditions as the local authority considers appropriate.

Application for consent

4. An application for a consent under this Schedule shall be made in writing and shall contain such information as the local authority may reasonably require.

5. An applicant for a consent under this Schedule shall pay such reasonable fee in respect of his application as the local authority may determine.

6. —(1) Where an application is duly made to the local authority for a consent under this Schedule, the authority shall grant the consent unless they are satisfied that the loading or unloading of goods from vehicles before 9 a.m. on Sunday at the shop to which the application relates, in connection with the trade or business carried on at the shop, has caused, or would be likely to cause, undue annoyance to local residents.

(2) Before granting a consent under this Schedule, the local authority shall consult such persons residing in the vicinity of the shop to which the application relates as appear to them to be likely to be affected by any loading or unloading at the shop.

(3) The authority shall determine the application and notify the applicant in writing of their decision within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the application is received by the authority.

(4) In a case where a consent is granted, the notification under sub-paragraph (3) above shall specify the conditions, if any, subject to which the consent is granted.

Publication of consent

7. Where a local authority grants a consent under this Schedule, the authority may cause a notice giving details of that consent to be published in a local newspaper circulating in its area.

Offence

8. A person who contravenes paragraph 3 above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

RESTRICTIONS ON SUNDAY OPENING OF LARGE SHOPS

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 3, leave out lines 10 and 11.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 3, line 18, leave out `retail'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 25 to 34.

Mr. Lloyd: After another debate in Committee, and consequent on an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), I undertook to consider whether it was possible to ensure that outlets that combined retail and wholesale trade, such as Costco, could be

restricted in respect of trading on Sunday to the same extent as outlets that engage entirely in retail sales. That is the purpose of the group of amendments.
In the Shops Act 1950 "shop" is so defined as to catch any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on. It catches wholesalers who also engage in retail trade. But the definition stretches widely. It catches certain outlets that provide services or hire out goods. It catches premises where any retail trade is carried out, however minimal and whatever the premises' main purpose.
The Shopping Hours Reform Council adopted a different approach in developing the model that the House selected and defined "shop" as any premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the retail sale of goods. That has advantages as it excludes hire purchase and service shops as well as buildings such as churches, where the odd postcard might be sold. It also excludes outlets where the predominant trade is wholesale, even where significant retailing takes place. The amendments seek to remedy that defect while preserving the benefits of the definition as a whole.
Amendment No. 27 amends the definition of "shop" so that it becomes premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale of goods. No distinction is drawn between wholesale and retail for that purpose. However, if we left matters there, the Bill would inadvertently bring into the net all wholesalers and suppliers irrespective of whether or not they engaged in retail trade.
Amendment No. 28, which amends paragraph 2(1) of the schedule, would prohibit large shops opening on a Sunday to serve retail customers instead of just customers. As I forewarned members of the Committee, guaranteeing that the schedule applies to mixed wholesalers and retailers, without causing further mischief to the schedule, is a complicated business. That is shown by the fact that it took no less than 11 amendments to achieve. However, in substance, all that the amendments achieve is that any large outlet engaged wholly or mainly in the sale of goods is restricted to six hours retail trade on a Sunday and has to apply to the local authority for listing so to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before we move on to the formal amendments, I must say that I do not take kindly to the host of private conversations taking place. If hon. Members wish to engage in them, they should do so outside the Chamber.

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 3, line 18, at end insert—
'"retail customer" means a person who purchases goods retail;
retail sale" means any sale other than a sale for use or resale in the course of a trade or business, and references to retail purchase shall be construed accordingly'.

No. 26, in line 19, leave out `retail'.

No. 53, in page 3, line 23, at end insert `and'.

No. 27, in line 25, leave out `retail'.

No. 54, in line 25, leave out from `goods' to end of line 33.

Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 36, leave out 'sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)' and insert 'sub-paragraph (2)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 2, leave out lines 44 to 46.

No. 38, in line 45, leave out from 'shop' to end of line 46 and insert—

(a)in respect of any Sunday other than a Sunday specified in sub-paragraph (b) below, before 1 pm, and
(b) in respect of any Sunday falling within the period in any year commencing with 27th November and ending with 24th December, before 4 pm.'.

No. 14, in line 46, at end insert
'but this sub-paragraph has effect subject to sub-paragraph (4) below.
(4) The exemption conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above does not apply where the Sunday is Easter Day or Christmas Day'.

No. 3, in page 4, leave out from beginning of line 36 to end of line 2 on page 5.

No. 39, in line 38, leave out from 'Sunday' to end of line 41

No. 40, in line 43, leave out from 'notice' to 'cancel' in line 47.

No. 41, in page 5, line 1, leave out
'superseded by a subsequent notice or'.

No. 4, leave out lines 4 to 21.

No. 42, in line 7, leave out from 'shop' to end of line.

No. 43, leave out lines 15 to 21.

No. 5, leave out lines 26 to 28.

No. 6, leave out lines 29 to 35.

No. 45, in line 32, leave out
'specified in a notice under paragraph 4 above'.

Mr. Alison: The effect of amendments Nos. 1 to 6 is that the broad structure of the option that the House chose last December is left in place. There is no reversion to the "type of shop" approach that the House rejected on 8 December. The amendments retain the provision that all small shops, under 3,000 sq ft or 280 sq m, should be allowed to open. They also provide for a short list of exempt shops of any size at any time on a Sunday. Importantly, they delete the provision allowing large shops to open for six hours on a Sunday—the aching tooth that I seek to extract from the gum of the Bill. That extraction greatly shortens and simplifies the Bill. We no longer need a notification scheme or rules governing precisely how and where large shops can open. The list of offences is reduced. Most of the amendments tabled in my name shorten the Bill because the provisions are no longer necessary.
The main reason for once again asking which shops should be allowed to open on Sundays is the publication and subsequent Second Reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. That allows shops to open from Monday to Saturday for 24 hours a day if they wish to do so. Although some reference was made to the possible introduction of the provision in the Government's White Paper on the deregulation Bill which was published last October, there was no confirmation that the provision would be included before the debate on the Sunday trading options on 8 December. It is striking that, in all that long debate on 8 December, no mention was made of the possibility of full deregulation from Monday to Saturday.
Clearly, the deregulation of shop opening hours during the working week has a major impact on the main arguments used against Sunday trading. I shall list a few of the implications for full weekday deregulation on the connected issue of Sunday trading, the first of which relates to consumer convenience. Many of those who argued in favour of Sunday trading at the end of last year did so on the ground that consumers needed the extra hours to shop on Sunday owing to the pressures of their weekday

commitments. It was argued that many people could not get to the shops easily between Monday and Saturday and needed them to open on Sunday. It was alleged that it was extremely inconvenient for such people that shops did not open on Sunday. If shops can open from Monday to Saturday up to 10 pm or 11 pm, instead of closing at 8 pm —or 9 pm one night a week—as under the present law, weekday deregulation will add at least an extra 11 hours on to the 67-hour shopping week of Monday to Saturday. That is a 15 per cent. increase in shopping hours and represents a much longer additional period than is offered on Sunday under the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals. If shops open until 11 rather than 12 o'clock, it will add a further six hours and represent an increase of 20 per cent.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has been my sparring partner on this issue for several months. Although I take his point about the deregulation Bill and the extra hours that will be available on weekdays, when it comes to acquiring fresh food, plants and so on does not he accept that supermarkets still need to be open on Sundays? The extra hours on weekdays will not satisfy housewives' needs for shopping on Sunday mornings and afternoons.

Mr. Alison: The next paragraph in my speech will address precisely the point about supermarkets' hours of opening.

Mr. Barron: If the right hon. Gentleman has such misgivings about the deregulation Bill, why did he vote for it on Second Reading?

Mr. Alison: I am very happy with the deregulation Bill and am not criticising it. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am merely showing that the deregulation Bill's provisions were so sweeping and beneficial that there are good grounds for the House to decide that the need for the extensive opening of large shops on Sundays has been evacuated and eviscerated. Three cheers for the deregulation Bill, precisely as a result of that provision.

Mr. Barron: The right hon. Gentleman makes great play of the effects of Sunday trading, especially the issue of employees. Does he think that shop employees should work until 11 or 12 at night?

Mr. Alison: It is not for me but for the shops to determine the hours that they may open during the week. The hon. Gentleman has probably received, as I have, a letter from Sainsbury. He may treat it with a grain of doubt, but it says that it does not propose to open any extra hours during weekdays. That remains to be seen, but it is not for me to decide.
In the light of the deregulation Bill, it must be decided whether large shops still need to open on Sundays. We can expect major supermarket chains, such as Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Gateway, to open frequently in the evenings until 10 o'clock if there is public demand, which is the key point. They have expressed a great willingness to try to meet the convenience of consumers, often claiming that they earn little additional profit in doing so. If large numbers of employed women find it difficult to shop during existing opening hours, we can expect supermarket chains—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) —to open late in the evening to accommodate that wish.
I ask hon. Members to bear the following point closely in mind when envisaging what will happen on Sundays. I am reliably informed that, in the United States, 34 per cent. of supermarket chains open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Over there, it is difficult to find a large supermarket that is not open until 10 or 11 pm every day of the week. If all those extra hours are available on weekdays, the argument that we need Sunday trading for the convenience of consumers, including those who use supermarkets or fresh food stores—we shall also keep smaller shops open on Sundays—loses much cf its impelling logic.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: It is mostly women who go shopping and, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, these days most of them go to work. Will he take it from me that, if a woman has been at work all day, shopping late in the evening, particularly getting home in the dark in the winter, is extremely unattractive? Does my right hon. Friend agree that shopping in daylight hours on Sundays and being able to take one's children and, if one is lucky, one's husband to carry home the shopping, is a much more attractive arrangement for women who work?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will agree that even better things can be done with one's family on a Sunday than haunting the halls of supermarkets if it is possible to get one's shopping done during the week, even in the dark. I am sure that a few fluorescent lights will be brought to bear on the supermarket environment. Better pursuits, such as my hon. Friend would want to engage in with family and friends, can then be indulged in on a Sunday.

Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend seems to be producing a shopping pattern for insomniacs rather than average families. Does he accept that most people would like to shop at midday rather than midnight and that, although America has many supermarkets open on Sundays, Sunday shopping there is accompanied by much greater church attendance than in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend's reference to church attendance is superfluous and irrelevant because people who want to go to church on Sundays will do so and will find a chance to shop at other times. He makes too big an issue of the unsurpassed, ecstatic joy of being able to shop at midday, as if shopping in daylight were a sure sign of all the possible enticements, inducements, benefits and joys that could accrue to a human being. I remind him that shopping in daylight at 12 o'clock on a particular day of the week is not what everybody lives for. People want to engage in a vast number of other activities. On Sundays, they can find plenty of things to do other than shopping if the shopping chore can be dealt with during the most convenient hours, by day or night, from Monday to Saturday. My hon. Friend's point is, therefore, not compelling.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend is making an interesting case. I agree that shopping, at any time, is a chore and that shopping on Sundays is not the height of family values. Will he deal with the point relating to the freedom to shop during the week? If his argument is consistent—he says that it is up to shops to decide how long to open—surely the same applies to Sundays. If people decide voluntarily to shop in the evening when that

becomes possible in the light of the deregulation legislation, the demand for Sunday shopping will no longer exist and shops will therefore decide not to open. The Bill does not oblige shops, whatever their size, to open, but gives them the possibility to open if the demand from the public is persistent.

Mr. Alison: Sainsbury may have written to my hon. Friend, as it has written to me, saying that following deregulation it does not propose to increase its current weekday opening hours. But it may discover that Tesco, Asda, Waitrose, or Budgen intend to stay open until 10 or 11 or 12 o'clock on weekdays. In that case, I draw an analogy with people watching a spectacle. At first they are all seated, but one stands up to get a better view and slowly everybody else stands up to get a better view. In the end, they all stand up and no one gets a better view.
The application of that little analogy is that, one after another, shops will all be forced to open on weekdays until a much later hour. One will find that if one large shop is permitted to open on Sunday, the same phenomenon that I described for weekdays will occur. One after another, shops will, of necessity and due to commercial pressures, have to open on Sunday. No one will be better off and everyone will find that Sunday has become just another day. I have attempted to give a rational response to my hon. Friend's intervention.

Mr. Pike: When Sainsbury started to open on Sundays, it said that it had entered the Sunday market only because its competitors had done so and it felt that it had to follow suit. Does not that underline the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman? His predictions of what will happen with late weekday opening will prove correct, despite what Sainsbury says in the letter to which he referred.

Mr. Alison: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of, and support for, my analysis. I am sure that he is right and that we have correctly diagnosed the pattern that will evolve.
I do not want to delay the House too long, so I shall move on to my second argument in favour of restricting the opening of large shops on Sundays. One of the major concerns expressed about allowing Sunday trading concerned its impact on small shops. If large shops open on Sundays, most small shops will have to open to compete. The owner of a small shop cannot afford to keep his shop shut when his competitors' shops are open. Even the loss of a few percentage points in market share could lead to small shops having to close. We have seen the widespread closure of small shops in the past decade. Many run close to the margins of profitability.
Opening small shops on Sundays, however, adds greatly to the stress of family life. It means that there is no longer even one day when shopkeepers can rest quietly with their families. If, under deregulation, they face competition every evening of the week, potentially until 10 or 11 pm at night, what will be left of their family lives? Many small shops will need to stay open much later in the evening to compete with larger shops.

Sir David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend said that small shops will be forced to open on Sundays and that family life will be damaged. Perhaps he does not fully appreciate that small shops need to open on Sundays and provide a good service because supermarkets are closed. It is the economics of being able to open on


Sundays that enables small shops to stay in business. My concern and, I hope, that of my right hon. Friend is that many villages will be deprived of their small shops if their trade is swamped by the supermarkets on Sundays.

Mr. Alison: The purpose of my amendment is to leave in place the proposal to allow the unrestricted opening of small shops of under 3,000 sq ft. My hon. Friend's argument is well taken. Those shops will have at least one day when the competitive pressures are such as to enable them to determine for themselves where their real interest lies.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) keeps returning to his bone of contention about the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. If he thinks that that Bill will be responsible for some of the pressures on small shops during the week, he should at least endorse the principle that keeping big shops shut on Sundays makes the best of what is, in his view, a bad world.

Mr. Barron: rose—

Mr. Alison: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that I supported the Tobacco Advertising Bill, which he introduced.

Mr. Barron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that support. He was advancing the argument that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will impose stress because shops will be able to open 24 hours a day.

Mr. Alison: If the hon. Gentleman has diagnosed stress, let him accept the remedy, prescription, pill or drug—whatever he wants to call it—that I have prescribed to reduce it. That remedy involves shutting the big shops on Sundays and giving the smaller shops a chance to catch up some of the ground. The logic of his objection to the extra stress is for him to support the proposition that big shops should not be allowed to open on Sundays.
Everyone knows that there is no potential for increased turnover from opening on Sundays. Everyone agrees that extra money will not be spent if shops open for longer hours—the butter is simply spread more thinly over the bread. The argument in favour of protecting small shops from the pressure of competition from large shops on Sundays and the pressure imposed on their family lives by having to work all hours of the day and night is doubly strengthened by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and its impact on Sunday-to-Saturday trade. More than ever, those who run small shops need one day when they are free from competitive pressures and when they can have a day of rest and quiet with their families.
Similar arguments apply to the 1 million or so shopworkers who will feel additional pressure to work on a Sunday. Longer weekday working hours will mean more irregular hours away from the home and family and will make it more difficult for shopworkers to spend time with their children when they are out of school, and with the spouse or partner when he or she is home from work. If we want to protect the home lives of our citizens and encourage families to stay together, we must pay attention to the impact of longer weekday hours on shopworkers. Longer weekday hours mean that it is even more vital to protect Sundays, when they can be at home with their families.
Urban residents will also suffer from longer weekday hours. Noise, bustle and general disturbance, including parking problems, will afflict them into the evening if shops can open until 10 or 11 o'clock, or even later.

Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend said that he has received the same letter as I received from directors of Sainsbury, which said that there will not be a significant lengthening of the hours that it will open during the week. That seems likely to be the same for all the major stores. Who wants to shop between 8 pm and 11 pm or even midnight? He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that they are not going to open, but that they will have longer hours for deliveries. He is arguing against his own case.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has not followed the line of my argument, which was that Sainsbury has written to me, as it has written to him, to say that it is not proposing to extend its existing hours of opening. That should be taken with a pinch of salt because it is not the wishes of the customers that will determine Sainsbury's opening hours, although I am not implying that it is an anti-social outfit. What will determine its weekday opening hours will be what Tesco, Asda, Gateway and other such shops do. It only needs one of those to extend its opening hours for all the others to extend theirs. So I am being consistent in saying that deregulation will lead to a widespread extension of opening hours for all the big shops.
I repeat my figures about supermarket chains in the United States–34 per cent. are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days in the year. That is likely to begin to apply here under deregulation and it is all the more reason for having a precinct of sanctity, quiet and peace on Sundays, with big shops closed.

Sir Terence Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although Sainsbury says that it will not open in the evening, it is assuming that it will be open on Sundays? Is it not more likely to open in the evenings if it cannot open on Sundays?

Mr. Alison: I cannot be dogmatic about how it will behave in the evenings. I am simply saying that, in essence, my amendment is a limited fail-safe provision that, after deregulation, big shops should not open on Sundays because they are likely to be opening much more extensively on weekdays. That fail-safe provision will at least regulate and contain the impact of big shops in so far as they affect the one day that has traditionally been a precinct day for family life, relative peace and quiet, absence of bustle, confusion, noise and the necessity to deploy all the extra services.

Sir Peter Tapsell: There have been a number of critical interventions during my right hon. Friend's speech. In a constituency such as mine, with 170 villages and about six market towns, it will be the death knell of the small shopkeeper if the amendment is not carried.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful for the unquestionably weighty support of my hon. Friend, whose intellectual scope and power is widely recognised in the House. My hon. Friend's intervention is such an enormous advantage to the deployment of my argument that I can almost sit down.

Mr. Donald Anderson: If we interpret the Sainsbury letter at its face value, do we not see that it is not Sainsbury's intention to extend its current opening? Sainsbury has altered its position on Sunday trading because of actual and anticipated competition. In the same way, its current intention, however honest, is likely to move with the movement of trade.

Mr. Alison: That is inescapable and it is why we need a statutory safe haven, a ring-fenced day in the week when small shops can open if they wish but larger shops are barred from opening by the will of the House.

Mr. Thomas Graham: The right hon. Gentleman said that in America some shops are open for 24 hours. I recently watched some programmes on Sky television and I noticed that shopworkers in America had to ride shotgun because of the lateness of their hours in 24-hour opening shops. I worked for Rolls-Royce on the night shift and nothing was more dismal and soul destroying than to be forced to do a night shift turn and have to spend it away from the family. At least Rolls-Royce paid us a premium wage for Sundays. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that we were not forced to work on Sundays in Rolls-Royce, but were expected to do so if the company was under pressure. But we got at least double pay. Britain's shopworkers seem to be treated as second-class citizens who can get their Sundays only if they can bargain and put in a good bid. I hope to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech now. That was a very long intervention.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point and I seek to recruit his support for my amendment by saying that the aspersions that he cast on big employers such as Rolls-Royce, which he would no doubt like to direct at large shopkeepers, retail stores and big multiples, are best avoided by preventing them from opening on Sundays. By that means the difficulties of double pay are entirely avoided.
I apologise to the House for taking so long, but I thought that it was right to give way to some interventions. It is reasonable to assume that when hon. Members decided to support the Shopping Hours Reform Council option on 8 December, they had weighed the arguments and had considered the desire of some employees to work on Sundays, although I think that the number of such employees is quite small. They also considered the convenience of customers in having access to shops on Sundays and that applied especially to married women in employment, although in a recent poll well under 10 per cent. of such women wanted Sunday shopping. They will also have considered the needs of small shops to have one day without competition from larger shops, the need for shopworkers to have a day with their families and partners, and the need for urban residents for a day of peace and quiet.
Deregulation of weekday hours tilts the balance of the argument much more in the direction of keeping Sunday special. That is what makes me believe that there is an urgent need to reconsider our earlier decision to allow all shops to open for six hours every Sunday. That is why I urge all hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 1 to 6.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I was delighted to add my name to the amendments moved by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). I almost called him my right hon. Friend, because he certainly is on this issue. I congratulate him on the way in which he spoke to his amendment. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman believes in "back to basics," which we construe as applying to a Government who are honest about their intentions and who seek, as far as they are able by legislation, to encourage family values and do not put up obstacles to the proper functioning of the family.
It is certain that one of the effects of the Bill would be to add to pressures on the family, which the right hon. Gentleman and I—and, I am confident, a substantial number of hon. Members in all parts of the House—believe to be the cornerstone of our society.
I have two reasons for supporting the amendment. First, unlike the six-hour option, the amendment represents a true and fair compromise between the interests of consumers and retailers and their staff. Secondly, I support it because of the many absurdities that are likely to be generated by the six-hour option. Those two points are closely linked. It is precisely because the six-hour option would be so difficult and expensive for local authorities to enforce and to police that it would speedily degenerate into a total deregulation.
I have argued, and shall not repeat, that in no wise is the six-hour option a compromise: it is what those who want total deregulation feel they can get at this time. There is no logical stopping point, because people will say, "If six hours, why not seven or eight?" As some hon. Members have forcefully said, even the six-hour option would need to have hours on either side for deliveries and so on. In effect, it would take up the whole of Sunday. The Shopping Hours Reform Council option was designed to be, and is, a Trojan horse designed to smuggle total deregulation into our society.

Mr. Pike: In recognition of the stores that support the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the six-hour option, and the way in which they have been prepared to break the law for a number of years, surely one can have no confidence that, if the Bill is carried in its present form, they will not try to break the law to move to eight or 10 hours, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Anderson: I should have thought that it was also "back to basics" not to encourage law breakers, as the Government are seeking to do in the Bill, and to protect those such as Marks and Spencer who, against their financial interests, seek to obey the law.
People in Britain do not want total deregulation and it was overwhelmingly rejected by the House on 8 December. If one were to believe the bona fide credentials of those behind the Shopping Hours Reform Council, one would also assume that they want overall liberalisation. As one can see from their unsuccessful attempts to prevent American warehouse chains entering the country, however, it is not liberalisation that they want; it is market share and their own narrow trade gain and, alas, various sections of the House appear to have fallen for that.
As a result of the SHRC option, every local authority will be forced to spend resources drawing up a detailed register of the names, addresses and opening and closing times of every large store in the area and of every large shop wishing to trade on Sundays. That in itself is a major requirement to impose on hard-pressed local authorities


which, as a result of other pressures, are shedding staff. Assuming that they had done that, local authorities would then have to police the opening and closing times which would have been registered by the stores in question. Because there are no set opening or closing times—the six hours have to be within a band—the local authority would have to ensure, so far as practicable, that the stores adhered to the opening and closing times that they had set out. That is an untidy system and would impose an additional unnecessary and unwelcome burden on our local authorities.
Each local authority will be required to have a large number of inspectors, to be on patrol every Sunday—presumably premium payments will be payable to them —to ensure that the new law, as laid down by the House, is respected and enforced. I fully accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). What confidence can we have, in the light of the law-breaking record of those stores, that they will rigorously adhere to the opening and closing times which they will have registered with the local authority? It may well be that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has greater faith in those stores.

Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he tell me how many officers the average local district council has had on duty on Sundays seeking to enforce the Shops Act 1950 in the past 40 years? I suggest that most of them have had none.

Mr. Anderson: The reason why there have been none is that those local authorities knew that they did not have the backing of central Government, particularly during the past few years. Therefore, it would have been wasted effort to employ officers who had many other duties to enforce the law when there was a clear signal from the Government —by the Government's inaction—that they were not at all interested in the law being enforced and obeyed. Had there been a clear signal from the Government that in these matters, as in others, they were interested in law and order, local authorities would have responded accordingly and would have had their officers enforcing the law.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that over the past two or three years local authorities, particularly environmental officers who normally would enforce the trading standards laws, have been under-resourced? Does he further agree that many local authorities did not know where the Government stood on the issue? Had they pursued the court cases and had the European Court ruled differently, councillors could have been surcharged for those actions.

Mr. Anderson: I fully agree with my hon. Friend, save in one respect: local authorities knew only too well where the Government stood. They knew that the Government were not interested in enforcing the law.
As every lawyer knows, although the referral to the European Court of Justice was done by the High Court on the basis that there was at least a minimally arguable case, there was no serious prospect of its being agreed by the European Court of Justice because every country in Europe has its own laws on Sunday trading.
It was a delaying device. The Government prevented local authorities from enforcing the existing law during the time—and it was known that it would be a long time—that procedures would be gone through in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. It was a deliberate collusion between the Government and the law breakers. The Minister shakes his head. I can tell him that when the matter was referred to the European Court of Justice, it was asserted that it would take more than a year. With another hat on, I do some work in the European Court of Justice and it is well known how slow its procedures are.
Immediately upon that referral to the Court, it was clear that there would be a period of uncertainty. That period of uncertainty was increased by the Government when they refused to assist local authorities who knew that at a time of financial stringency they were risking their own poll tax or council tax payers' money. I understand from one local authority that more than £250,000 would have been at risk had the case been lost. Few local authorities would have been bold enough to risk that sort of money while the Government were doing nothing to enforce the law.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Should it have been right for the Attorney-General to intervene—I do not believe it was, and that was certainly not the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend—the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that taxpayers' money should have been put at risk in the same way as charge payers' money was. That would not be a good use of the money when the law was obscure, because the High Court had referred the matter to the European Court.

Mr. Anderson: The law was clear in respect of the Shops Act and the existing law, as traditionally interpreted, would have prevailed while the referral to the European Court of Justice was taking place. The Minister makes an absurd point in suggesting that there is some equivalence between a local authority risking the money of its own ratepayers because of a technicality and central Government ensuring that law and order in this case, as in others, was enforced. The Government chose to do nothing.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was saying that the law was in doubt and that that was why the local authorities could not perform their duty or that the law was quite clear. If it was, why did local authorities not pursue their duty and obtain damages at no expense to local ratepayers?

Mr. Anderson: Clearly, the Shops Act had been interpreted in a certain way. As a result of the referral, there was only an arguable case. There cannot have been any serious expectation on the part of those who brought the case in the first place that they would ultimately win in the European Court of Justice. There could have been no such expectation because there is such a range of practices within EC countries. If that lobby had no serious expectation of winning, what was its motive but to buy time?

Mr. John Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the High Court sent that case to the European Court of Justice to buy time for retailers—that the judges of this country indulged in a legalistic facade? If so, no one believes him.

Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman makes an absurd point. I said that the motive of those who commenced the proceedings was to buy time. The nature of our laws dictated that the issue be taken to Luxembourg. It was known from past practice that that would take a long time —during which the Government could choose to enforce or not to enforce the law. That lobby knew that the Government were sympathetic, and it was allowed to get away with it.
As the absurdities of the SHRC option are made manifest, local authorities will again be unready to enforce the law. Matters will become more and more chaotic and, as sure as night follows day, we shall slide into total deregulation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who supported complete deregulation said that they would vote for the SHRC proposals as the way forward? That supports the hon. Gentleman's argument that, the door having been opened, it will open much wider.

Mr. Anderson: Of course. The Shopping Hours Reform Council knew that its option was riddled with anomalies, would cause chaos and would eventually slide in the direction that the council wanted.
Total deregulation is not wanted here or by the people of Britain, who recognise the strong case for a common day of rest and relaxation each week. They acknowledge that Sunday is the principal day of the week on which time is spent with family and friends. They know that as a result of the Bill—in which the Government are colluding—that invaluable common day off will be permanently obliterated from national life, in the same way as Good Friday. It is a one-way ratchet and there will be no going back. The effect of the SHRC option will be that Sunday will become like any other shopping, working weekday.
Total deregulation is also not wanted by small shop owners—few of whom would survive eight-hour competition from larger stores. I ask the right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to consider village stores, which play a tremendous community role, and the way specialised shops in high streets throughout the country are increasingly closing down. How many family butchers are left in our high streets as a result of competition from supermarkets?

Mrs. Gorman: In my experience, many small shops have gone to the wall because of the heavy rates and, sometimes, high rents that they have to pay—rather than lack of trade.

Mr. Anderson: I concede that rates are a factor. I know that the hon. Lady cares about this issue, and I ask her to consider also the case of markets. There is a market in my city, and I know many of the stallholders personally. The powers given to local authorities in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will create competition that may be too much for them to bear. That process of eliminating small traders such as butchers and bakers through competition from supermarkets will certainly accelerate.

Mr. Graham: We are always being told about the wonderful Scottish experience of Sunday trading, but I assure my hon. Friend that it creates many difficulties. In my area, police have to attend areas that were once quiet on Sunday to deal with traffic congestion. There is also pressure on local government services to ensure that shopping areas are kept clean and tidy. Much cost is

associated with Sunday opening. I confess that my wife shops on Sunday, although not every Sunday. My final point—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Enough.

Mr. Anderson: After that little warm-up, I look forward with eager anticipation to my hon. Friend's speech. He spoke of his experience of Sunday trading in Scotland, and I wholly agree that the character of Sunday will be fundamentally altered.
As to the point about rates mentioned by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I imagine that they account for a small proportion of the total costs that bear on small businesses.
Deregulation is not wanted by small traders, or by urban residents—whose peace and quiet is likely to be fundamentally changed. Neither is it wanted by the majority of 2.2 million retail workers—contrary to the assertions of those who claim to speak on behalf of those workers.
Total deregulation is not wanted by policemen and traffic wardens. It is not wanted or needed by consumers, whose requirements will be catered for more than adequately by the combination of deregulated mid-week opening hours provided for in clause 17 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
When we first discussed the options, there was a case for ensuring greater consumer choice. That was one of the more cogent points made by those who argued against my position, but that contention has been fundamentaly altered by the deregulation Bill. Any consumer will have ample time to shop on weekday evenings; yet the Government are still determined to destroy our traditional British Sunday —which is precious to us and has many positive social effects.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Selby on his amendments, which meet the profound wishes and good sense of the majority of the public, who do not want Sunday to be just like any other day. They fear the commercial pressures to which we yield again and again, and that much that we value in terms of small shops, the peace and quiet of a Sunday and the ability to be with one's family at least one common day a week will be destroyed —and will not be capable of being recreated.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I -recall clearly the arguments that we all listened to on 8 December. Many hon. Members in the House this evening will remember that I favoured the total deregulation option. It was not the will of the House that we should have total deregulation, but I do not accept the contention of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposal is a Trojan horse or, indeed, that it is a short cut to getting total deregulation.
I did not think that that proposal was the right one for the House to adopt and I made that abundantly clear at the time. I believe strongly that we should allow people to make for themselves the choices that they want to make. That was not the choice of the House. Having voted on 8 December for the six-hours option, I determined that I would pursue that course, for some of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman articulated. If we are to have a day that is different, the SHRC option of six hours for the larger stores gives just that difference to the day. For example, the hon.


Gentleman argued that small shops would also not suffer if we had the option that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has just proposed.

8 pm

Mr. Alfred Morris: For the record, will the right hon. Lady define the difference between what is in the Bill and total deregulation? Will she give her definition?

Dame Angela Rumbold: I was just coming to that. The Bill will allow smaller shops the freedom to open at any time that they wish on a Sunday—the protection that so many people wanted to offer to small shops against what they saw as the predatory nature of the larger stores. The larger stores, however—those of more than 3,000 sq ft —will have to choose the six hours in which they wish to open during a Sunday. That is in itself protection for those small shops.

Mr. Donald Anderson: It is very marginal.

Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman might say that, but it is a protection, because it shows that there must be a choice.

Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the total deregulation option, there would have been no question whatever of the substantial degree of worker protection that has been written into the Bill as it presently stands?

Dame Angela Rumbold: That is one reason why I wanted total deregulation; it seemed to make eminent sense.
The other point that the hon. Member for Swansea, East made was that, under the six-hour option, there will be considerable extra work for the local authorities to police the law, as it will be if that is what the House wishes. I must put it to him that the option that Keep Sunday Special made included an enormous amount of regulation and policing, to such an extent that a majority of local authorities were in agreement that that was the very last thing that they wanted introduced, because it would mean so much extra work and extra costs for them and for the people whom they would have to employ.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Of course I concede that, under the Keep Sunday Special option, there would be burdens on local authorities. I do not resile from that. All that I am saying is that the so-called liberalisation of the SHRC would also entail a substantial burden on local authorities. By so doing and moving inexorably—in my judgment—to total deregulation, we will do away with our traditional Sunday, which most people value.

Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, as, indeed, I am to mine. I do not believe that the six-hour option will impose on local authorities anything like the burdens that the Keep Sunday Special—

Mr. Lord: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Dame Angela Rumbold: I shall do so, although I should like to make a little progress.

Mr. Lord: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because I am one of those who believe that this is simply deregulation by the back door. I accept the points that were made at the time. This was looked at as a compromise, but only because there were three matters before the House and this was the one in the middle. If we had started from scratch, with a clean sheet, and asked whether we wanted shops to open on a Sunday and somebody came forward with a "compromise" that allowed shops to open for six hours in an eight-hour day, that would not have been regarded as sensible. Bearing in mind a bit of opening at the beginning of the day and a bit of opening at the end of the day over the edges, to most normal people it must look like a normal working day.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I am quite surprised at my hon. Friend. I thought that the House specialised in compromise. It was incapable many times of making a clear decision one way or another, which is why I deplore the fact that we were not able to choose the total deregulation option that was before the House at the time.
I want now to come to the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. He believes that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will enable stores to open for six days a week at any time. Therefore, following his reasoning, that will obviate the need for shops—particularly the larger stores—to open on a Sunday.
I believe that the shopping habits of the great British public are not quite as manic as some hon. Members would like to think. I do not see millions of people rushing to the shops at every minute or hour of the day that they are open. The habits of the shopping public are normally more rational and they are more inclined to go shopping at their convenience than at that of the shops. The shops can do no more than open and offer the opportunity to their customers. It will be entirely up to customers to choose when they go shopping.
I am fairly confident that the vast majority of women who take on the responsibility of doing the weekly shop will find intensely unattractive the opportunity to go shopping at the hours of 9 pm to midnight. I say that because substantial numbers of those women work extremely hard. When they have worked, they normally go home and prepare a meal, and often do chores. The very last thing they will want to do then is get into the car or on their bicycles, or on their feet, and go down to the local supermarket to do a shop.
I must tell hon. Members who are not accustomed to shopping that it is not a leisurely or enjoyable task. It is a task which must be done, but is quite hard work, requires a certain amount of physical capacity and can be very tiring. To assume that this suggestion will be welcomed by people who want to go and do their shopping in a more rational frame of mind seems quite absurd.

Mr. Alton: There are good reasons therefore for sparing people the necessity of going through precisely those exercises on a Sunday as well.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I deeply disagree. I make no bones about this. I do not want to dictate when any shop or retailer should open, but if it is possible for families to go together and do the shopping, it is infinitely better for the person on whom the burden normally falls—that is, the woman—that she should have the opportunity of having her husband, and perhaps her children, accompany her. We


are not talking about the weekly shop, although I was quite incensed at some of the ways in which that shop was described. I thought it demonstrated beyond anything that I have ever heard in the House a total ignorance of the burdens that women must carry. It was also suggested that few women—indeed, people—worked on Sunday and did not work on other days.
On the whole, women work extremely hard, whether they work for their living, look after their children or simply stay at home and look after the home. If they also have to take work during the week to supplement and subsidise the family income, for whatever reason, it seems quite outrageous that we should say to them that they can work Monday to Saturday up until midnight but not on a Sunday, and that one can only do that for extra money. Many of those women choose to work on Sunday because that is the day when it is most convenient for them, to ensure that the families stay together, because their partner is then able to undertake caring for their children. Families —the element about which we argue so often in the House —are more likely to stay together in those circumstances than if the woman has to work until midnight, which is a ridiculous idea.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Lady has spoken with some feeling about the problems of shoppers. She is a former Minister of State in the Home Office and I recall that she often spoke with feeling in support of what was said by the Police Federation. Now, the federation's general secretary says:
To allow Sunday to become a day which requires high levels of manpower and police resources would have a serious effect on shift systems, and there is no doubt that police officers do require Sundays off to spend with family and friends".
How does the right hon. Lady respond to that?

Dame Angela Rumbold: When I was at the Home Office, I had no responsibility for the police, although I had other responsibilities.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: As I said earlier, the Association of Chief Police Officers has made clear its view that any extra work that would fall to it would be manageable and negligible.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Let me continue with what I was saying about the importance of understanding precisely what we are being asked to consider. We are being asked to consider an alternative to what we approved in our vote on 8 December —and that alternative is posited on the fact that because larger stores may have an opportunity to open six days a week throughout the night as well as all day, we should feel able to change our minds and deny families and others the chance to shop in such stores on Sundays, even for limited periods.
I believe that it would be best to uphold our vote of 8 December and to allow customers—including families —to make up their own minds about when they wish to shop. I feel extremely confident that many will continue to do what millions do already, irrespective of the notion that everyone wishes to spend Sunday at home—often, dare I say, bored out of their minds.
Many people like to go out as a family on Sundays. They do not necessarily want to do the weekly shop; many wish to visit garden centres, take the children to buy a new pair of shoes, look at furniture or buy materials for home

improvement. Who are we to deprive them of that opportunity? Who are we to say that, with total deregulation, they can engage in those activities from Monday to Saturday, between certain hours? In fact, most families do not manage to get together in their homes until between 7 and 8 pm; they will almost certainly be condemned to shop late at night. What rational family will take the children out so late, or expect a woman to go out in the dark at a time when women, and elderly people in particular, are fearful about going out?

Mr. Quentin Davies: My right hon. Friend makes an eloquent case for deregulation. May I ask who will pay the additional costs involved? Who will pay for the extra policing, the extra parking and traffic control and the extra garbage collection costs, for example? Will it be the shops that benefit from Sunday opening, or the general public—taxpayers, business taxpayers, business rate payers and council tax payers, including those who, for reasons of conscience or otherwise, prefer not to open their shops on Sundays?

Dame Angela Rumbold: Many, of course, will not open their shops on Sundays. Precisely those points, however, have been considered very carefully, both in Committee and just now by my right hon. Friend the Minister, who answered adequately and eloquently on behalf of the Police Federation. He said that ACPO and other federations had said that the extra charges that may or may not accrue—I am not at all convinced that they will —would be negligible in comparison with the importance of giving people the opportunity to behave as they choose on Sundays, rather than as we dictate.
8.15 pm
Let me make the point about safety once more, because I think that it is important. We often assume that, because shops are open late at night in summer, that is a perfectly acceptable time for families to go out. In this country, however, it is usually dark when people go out in the evening, because we cannot grasp the nettle and bring our time arrangements into line with those of our continental counterparts. That, however, is a separate point, on which I shall not elaborate.
I feel that we are in grave danger of assuming that, because a deregulation Bill is before the House, it may somehow enable people to open their shops at different times and thereby attract more customers. For reasons of safety, I do not believe that any elderly people or many women will go out late at night; certainly, no families will allow their children to go out at such times, for good and sensible reasons. Therefore, I believe that very few shops will avail themselves of the opportunity to stay open enormously late: customers simply will not want to visit them.
This evening, hon. Members are trying to put a case based on a false premise—the premise that we know when people are going to go shopping. We do not know that; what we do know is that the experience of the past few years suggests that many people enjoy shopping on Sundays, during the day. Are we to deny those people the opportunity, simply because we think that they might go shopping late at night instead? I do not think that likely, and I urge hon. Members to think very carefully before voting for the amendment. I believe that such a vote would be based on a completely false premise.

Mr. Alton: We are considering three sets of amendments. There are what might be described as the "mornings only" amendments; there is the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and me, which seeks to exempt at least Christmas day, when it falls on a Sunday, and Easter Sunday; and there are the amendments to which the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) spoke so well, which seek to limit the size and scale of shops that may open, excluding the larger shops measuring more than 3,000 sq ft. All are attempts to return us to where we were in December, when the Keep Sunday Special option was narrowly defeated.
As we now know from our debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee, the changes made since then —both in the Bill itself, and following the introduction of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—and the subsequent failure to include worker protection in this Bill make it clear that the votes cast earlier by many right hon. and hon. Members were conditional on future alterations. That is why these amendments are so crucial. I hope that many hon. Members, when they come to vote, will see them as a chance to put the Bill back on the right path.
The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) spoke in the debate on the original Bill presented by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). It seems a long time ago that we first went through the arguments, as a kind of rehearsal for the debate to come.
The right hon. Lady and I have always disagreed on this matter; there is no point in disguising that. I disagree with her for a number of reasons. She has argued for complete deregulation and I respect the way in which she has put her view, but I do not agree with it.
Enough features of our life in this country have been "deregulated". There is a need to protect and safeguard our family life, our community life, church life, town centres and small shops, and to meet the needs of the elderly and the disadvantaged. We have already conceded far too much to materialism and consumerism. There is, therefore, a moral question to be considered about the deeper values of our society. The issue that we are debating goes to the heart of those.
We need time together as families and communities. Nothing can be more important than children and their parents having time with one another, or there being time in which to visit elderly people. If all the pressures are to be placed on us on a Sunday that are placed on us every other day of the week, what chance will we have to fulfil those duties? We speak so much about our rights and our choice, but what about our responsibilities, our duties and our obligations to one another? Sunday gives us the ideal opportunity for a pause in our lives.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman was answering the arguments of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). Does he accept that, just as she was making assumptions from our point of view to try to refute the arguments of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), the right hon. Lady was making some strange assumptions herself—obviously not fully aware of changing patterns of night life in our cities —when she postulated that no one would want to go shopping at night? In other words, there will be an opportunity for people to shop at night and, to confirm

what the hon. Gentleman was saying, we are minimizing the proper opportunities for family leisure together on the one day that is available.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that argument so well. What I found strange about the right hon. Lady's case was that she argued an entirely different case on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and that she and some of her hon. Friends would say that we need to have those opportunities Monday to Saturday to shop 24 hours a day, because people need to have the chance to go out at night and so on. I do not dispute that, but let us consider the present moment.
We seem to have got by perfectly well for most of this century with the shopping arrangements which we have had and, in so doing, we have protected Sunday as a special day. It was the Government's own Auld committee, appointed in 1983, that concluded:
the economic effects of deregulation are likely to be small; the social effects may not be.
The social effects may not be. I believe that that is true. The social effects are likely to be considerable.
If I can offer even better advice than that of the Auld committee to the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, it would be the advice that Winston Churchill once gave. He said that we needed Sunday and he described it as
the necessary pause in the national life and activity".
He said:
it is essentially the day of emancipation from the compulsion and strain of daily work".
He said:
it is the birthright of every British subject, a day of personal, social and spiritual opportunity, and, above all, our great heritage, and one it is our responsibility, privilege and duty to hand on, to posterity unsullied by the commercialisation which is making its mark today.
If that was true 40-odd years ago, how much more true is it today, with the pressures of commercialisation and materialism that abound?
I passionately believe, therefore, that we must do more to restrict, rather than to make available, Sunday as yet another day for shopping.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who speaks for the Labour party on home affairs, is here for this part of the debate, because it reminds me of what he said, quite rightly, in the book "Reclaiming the Ground":
There is right and wrong. There is good and bad",
and that we had to understand the difference. In that book, he and other people quoted from R. H. Tawney, when they said that expediency alone should not justify the way in which we vote on issues. I hope that he will be present with us in the Lobby later, to put some real flesh on those remarks, because he has his chance tonight to protect a very important part of our national life.
Other hon. Members will speak about the amendments that deal with "mornings only". The amendments that I want to speak to specifically are those about Christmas and Easter. If we do nothing else today, surely we should exclude from the Bill Christmas day and Easter day. Easter day especially is a day when the pressures will he on for shops to be open. We heard from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) earlier about Good Friday and the way in which that has already disappeared as a special day. The same is true of Easter day.
I hope that amendment No. 14 will be relatively non-controversial, although I doubt it, somehow. I suspect


that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who I know would have been sympathetic if the amendment had merely mentioned Christmas day, will not support it if it includes Easter day. I hope to be proven wrong by him later, and perhaps I have stirred him into making a few remarks about that amendment.
I strongly support the right hon. Member for Selby's amendments, which are supported by Members in all parts of the Chamber. First, I believe that they would be a boost for small business. Small stores have been especially hard hit by the recession and by the sheer corporate muscle of the big superstores. Of course there is room in the marketplace for small food shops and for large supermarkets, but they can co-exist only if small businesses are given a chance to thrive on Sunday trade.
Large stores make only 5 per cent. of their turnover on Sundays, whereas up to 25 per cent. of small shops' trade takes place on Sundays. Under the Shopping Hours Reform Council option, Sunday trading, which is crucial to small shops' survival, could be cut by half. That is one reason why people should support the right hon. Gentleman's amendment.
Secondly, there is the idea of Sunday as a different day. If those amendments are accepted, Sunday will remain different from the other days of the week. Customers who need to shop for essential foods and household goods will be able to do so, yet the free-for-all of deregulation, with the noise and the environmental cost—issues which I mentioned earlier—and the pressures on small shops to open when the employees would prefer to be with their families, will be avoided.
Thirdly, there is the issue of damage to small shops. Small convenience stores have fought hard to remain viable in the face of increasing competition from supermarkets and superstores. Late night and Sunday opening have been essential to their survival.
In the past 20 years, 50 small stores on average have gone out of business every single week. In 1950, there were 650 supermarkets of more than 2,500 sq ft, and 145,000 independent grocers. In 1992, there were 769 superstores of more than 25,000 sq ft and only 35,000 independent local stores, compared with 145,000 in 1950. That situation will be made much worse unless we provide the protection that the right hon. Member for Selby is trying to provide.
All that is borne out by the "Retail Intelligence Report" for 1993, which reported:
for major multiples, business that was formerly going to neighbourhood stores is being picked up as additional business.
For small stores, the SHRC option is not a six-hour option but an eight-hour option, as different superstores choose to trade at different times. As we heard from the hon. Member for Swansea, East, not only will workers have to work an hour in advance of opening and an hour at the end of opening, but they will have the travelling time involved, which will require them to work up to nine hours on a Sunday.
Fourthly, there is the issue of job losses. The London Economics survey for 1993 stated that the SHRC option would lead to about 5,000 job losses. They would come mainly from the small shops sector. That is another reason why the amendment should be supported.
Fifthly, I want to tackle the myth of freedom of choice, which the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden advanced. The SHRC and the right hon. Lady seek to

justify their deregulatory proposals in the name of freedom of choice. That argument is superficially plausible, but in practice it is bogus.
When small stores close as a result of a superstore trading on Sundays, the freedom of choice of millions of people, including some of the most disadvantaged groups, will be much reduced. The public understand this, even if the SHRC and the right hon. Lady do not. Eighty per cent. of respondents to a National Opinion Polls poll conducted in September 1990 said that they would oppose wider Sunday opening if it would cause smaller shops to close.
There is also the issue of community life. Small shops' decline undermines the social fabric of community life. The Rural Development Commission has emphasised the importance of small shops in rural communities. When they go out of business, it is the elderly, the disabled, women at home with children, and those without transport who suffer. Community shops are highly valued by the public. In September 1992, a Countryweek survey asked villages which of their institutions was the most important. The shop came first with 50 per cent., the church second with 40 per cent., the village hall third and the pub fourth.
Deregulation would not, as so many people have argued, lead to increased profits. Even those who advocate deregulation acknowledge that Sunday trading would not increase profits. John Dowd, the managing director of Morrisons, which was reluctantly forced to open on Sundays to maintain market share, said:
There is no more trade to be had. There is only one cake; to slice into seven pieces rather than the six does not make the cake bigger".
Even David Quarmby, the managing director of Sainsbury, admitted:
It is not particularly commercial. I mean, it is almost profit-neutral for us.
Although there may be a little extra trade for the superstores which currently open under deregulation, the advantage would be wiped out as all the competitors opened on Sunday.
8.30 pm
A study by the Small Business Research Centre in Cambridge found that only 10 per cent. of firms thought that Sunday trading would boost their sales and profitability. Half of firms thought that their profitability would decline.
In summary, the small shops sector has already had a foretaste of the effects of the Shopping Hours Reform Council option, since superstores, started opening on Sundays. It has had a detrimental effect on the turnover of local shops. Superstores do not need such trade—as we heard from Sainsbury, it is profit-neutral—but for small stores and shops, Sunday trade is crucial for survival.
If the SHRC proposal became law, the effect would be felt not immediately but within three to five years, when market share would be concentrated in the hands of superstores, and local shops and high streets could have virtually disappeared.
For those reasons, I hope not only that the House will accept my amendment dealing with Easter and Christmas and the amendments that seek to limit Sunday opening to mornings only, but that the amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Selby, which deals with the size of shops—the big and the small and the less-than-3,000 sq ft option—will commend itself to every hon. Member, irrespective of party.

Sir John Hannam: I shall follow on from the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in his excellent speech. He referred to other amendments in the main group and I speak in support of amendment No. 38 and the consequential amendments which stand in my name and that of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley).
The amendments are straightforward and easily understood. Their purpose is to restrict the opening hours of the larger stores to Sunday mornings with 1 pm as the closing time. If the House were to accept them, we should achieve the best compromise, and we have talked much about compromise in this debate.
The half-day opening of shops has always been a successful method of giving staff a good family break and instead of having a complicated system of registration and notices of the particular six hours during which shops intend to open on Sundays, as will happen under the present six-hour shopping day proposals, no notices are required under our proposals. In addition, registration with local authorities, would not be necessary, although one of our consequential amendments would provide for a local registration system to assist local authorities, but that could easily be dropped by the Government if they felt that it was not necessary.
In the debate on 8 December, much was made of the suggestion that a six-hour option was the "compromise" option, but, in a situation where many hon. Members might not have ideally chosen any of the three options, the six-hour option may have been selected—by a very small majority of 16 on the second vote—as merely the best of what was on offer. If Sunday trading for large shops is to be controlled by the number of hours they are permitted to open, it is legitimate for the House to consider the exact number of hours. I should like to explore first how many hours constitute a real compromise and when they might best be accommodated.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which has been published since the crucial vote on the Sunday options, will permit shops to open without restriction between Monday and Saturday. The extension of opening hours should influence our thinking on what represents a compromise for Sunday opening. We should also identify the competing interests that have to be reconciled in arriving at the right compromise. In this case, we must consider the interest of consumers and small shops, the environment, employees, families and the general quality of life in the community.
To allow shops to open for a half day, as we used to see mid-week or Saturday afternoons, would provide a total of one-and-a-half days within the two-day weekend. I believe that that is a much better compromise than allowing shops to trade for any six hours within an eight-hour window —that is, in effect, for the larger part of a normal working day. If one adds on the time before opening and the clearing-up time, one arrives at a normal working day. Incidentally, the amendments are in line with the pre-Christmas period of extended opening of up to seven hours on the four Sundays. Of course, under the amendments all small shops would continue to be able to trade without restriction throughout the year.
For the benefit of those who are anxious to avoid a return to the 1950 Sunday shopping law, I stress that the amendment would clear up various anomalies and simplify

even more than the six-hour option. The question is how half-day opening would sit with retailers and their customers.
We must remember that retail interests have driven the campaign for Sunday shopping in the name of the Shopping Hours Reform Council and they are dominated by DIY and major food retailers such as Sainsbury's, Tesco, Safeway, Asda, B and Q, Texas and Homebase, all of whom have been willing to flout the existing restrictions and laws. However, we must accept that if Sunday trading is permitted for six hours, the forces of competition will drag other retailers in their slipstream, however reluctant they may be initially to trade.
The major food companies are now big retailers of non-food goods. Sainsbury's alone sells perhaps £2 billion worth of non-food goods a year. Marks and Spencer and the John Lewis Partnership, although they believe that Sunday trading will bring no long-term benefit, have said that they will not be able to stand out indefinitely if the household names are driven by competitive forces to open. Who else will resist? What will happen to the smaller shops?
If the better compromise is half-day opening, when should it occur? As I said, morning opening and afternoon closing have precedents. The early-closing day was of great benefit to many people and is still applied through employment laws in many European countries, in Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria, for example. Some may argue that it is better to open in the afternoon on a Sunday rather than in the morning, but that is not better for the consumer; nor is it better socially.
Consumers requiring DIY items or garden equipment on Sunday would be able to buy them sooner rather than later in the day. Equally, those wanting food would be more likely to shop in the morning before the mid-day meal. The same is true for garden centres. Consumer interest clearly backs the Sunday morning opening rather than afternoon opening.
From a social point of view, limiting opening to mornings only would be far more beneficial.

Mr. David Nicholson: I came to hear my hon. Friend because he is a neighbour, but I am a little puzzled. Some people will want to shop for food and other household goods on Sunday mornings but it would be more normal to visit a garden centre or a DIY shop, and particularly a garden centre, on Sunday afternoon. What has he to say about that?

Sir John Hannam: I do not understand the logic of my hon. Friend's argument. One would not want to buy plants at 4 pm or 5 pm on a Sunday and have to work all through Sunday night to plant them. I have discovered that many garden centres have shop buildings consisting of less than 3,000 sq ft, so that would allow them to stay open throughout the day. Most garden centres will be able to continue trading throughout the day, anyway.
As I was saying, from the social point of view I believe that Sunday morning opening is more beneficial. In the average active hours of the typical citizen on Sunday, from 8.30 in the morning until 10.30 at night, morning shopping could occupy the first four or four and a half hours of a 14-hour day. In the remaining hours, there would be benefits for all the other interests.
Smaller shops would have a better chance of competing with larger shops, thus preserving a vital service for


villages and other local communities. Residents of high streets and areas near shopping centres would have peace and quiet for a decent proportion of the day. Shop workers would be home for Sunday lunch, and would be able to spend the rest of the day with their families. From the environmental point of view, half-day opening would limit the estimated increase of 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year that would result from widespread full Sunday trading.
The most important argument about the proposal is that the retail and, more especially, the consumer interests that have driven the campaign for Sunday opening—DIY interests, the garden centres and the food stores—should be sufficiently served by half-day opening, without dragging along in their slipstream, however unwillingly, the rest of the retail industry. That, in turn, would bring real benefits for retail employees.
Those of us with real doubts about the effectiveness of a statutory right not to work on Sunday would welcome a situation in which there would probably be sufficient genuine volunteers for Sunday work on the scale projected for Sunday morning. There would also be less of a reduction in full-time weekday employment in favour of part-time weekend employment. That reduction is a forecast trend that clearly works against the interests of breadwinners' incomes and it is expected to reduce the overall number of jobs in retailing. We have already seen evidence of it in the increase in the number of pail-time workers.
I must take account of the argument that morning opening conflicts with church services. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said earlier, the six-hour option poses the same question. However, I suspect that church leaders would regard the morning-only option as preferable to six-hour opening. Many church-going colleagues have argued that those who wish to attend morning services will continue to do so, and they are right. Services last about an hour, so there will still be plenty of time for both worship and Sunday shopping for those who wish to do both.
A dictionary definition of "compromise" is:
finding an intermediate way between the conflicting causes by the modification of each".
If we are to have a compromise on Sunday trading, permitting larger shops to open until 1 pm, and until 4 pm on the four Sundays before Christmas, would provide a fairer balance between retail interests and the interests, indeed the survival, of small shops, the environment, employees, families and the community as a whole.
If the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby is rejected, I hope that the House will look favourably on amendment No. 38, which would achieve all that we need to achieve in clearing up the anomalies of existing shop legislation and allow all shops to open for a decent four and a half hours on Sunday morning, giving us all at least a peaceful half day with our families.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: It is a curious irony that while the House of Lords is debating the International Year of the Family, we are debating legislation that, whichever decision we make, will have real implications for the family.
I shall speak in support of amendment No. 38 and the consequential amendments so persuasively advocated by

the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). I agree with his arguments and there are one or two other points that I should like to raise, too.
On Second Reading, I supported the case put forward jointly by the Keep Sunday Special campaign and Retailers for Shops Act Reform, for two principal reasons. First, it represented the only option before the House on Second Reading that I believed was genuinely concerned with, and committed to, employee protection.
Several hon. Members have advanced the case that Sunday shopping is necessary because women feel unable to shop, or unsafe shopping, outside their normal working hours during the week. I shall read the House a short extract from a letter that I received from one of my constituents, Miss Phyllis Abba, a lady now retired:
I worked at Boots when we had to do most of our shopping during our dinner time and I cut out a tea-break to make it a little longer for this purpose, because when we left at 6 pm, and 1 pm on half-day closing, most of the other shops were closed too. So when people talk of needing Sunday for shopping, in these days of much greater leisure, I am not very impressed.
As someone who worked in the shop trade, she found ways to shop for her needs, despite the fact that, because of her employment, she was at work during precisely the hours when shops were open.
The second reason why I supported the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR compromise on Second Reading was my belief that the key issue is whether we want retailing to go the way of small local businesses or the way of national chains. I saw the argument as one between the town centre and out-of-town shopping, between the high street and the hypermarket. I believed that it was important to protect the interests of smaller businesses, which provide a range and diversity not, by their very nature, offered by a small number of large national stores whose shops sell exactly the same products whether they are in York or in Abingdon.
My heart tells me that I ought to support the zero hours option put forward by Keep Sunday Special—and indeed I shall vote for it. But my head tells me that that proposal may not carry the day. If it is carried, the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Exeter and myself will fall. If and only if Keep Sunday Special is not carried will the House have an opportunity to vote for our proposal.
We propose a genuine compromise which provides a genuine half day to allow people who want or need to shop on Sunday to do so. But it would also allow shop workers and others whom Sunday shopping would require to work on Sunday the opportunity to spend at least some of Sunday—the afternoon and evening—with their families, making it different from the days of the normal working week.

Mr. Douglas French: I support the hon. Gentleman's half-day proposals; indeed, I suggested something similar on Second Reading. But will he say what arguments he has considered on the possibility of having half-day closing on Sunday morning and half-day opening on Sunday afternoon?

Mr. Bayley: In Committee, I spoke to and supported a similar proposition, but, on reflection, I have come to the opinion that a morning rather than an afternoon Sunday opening provides a better balance between the social need for time off and the commercial needs of retailers to open shops when people would choose to use them.
I understand the conflict between morning opening and church services, but, as the right hon. Member for Selby


and the hon. Member for Exeter have explained, people who want to shop as well as go to church would be able to do so under this compromise proposal which allows four and a half or five hours opening on Sunday morning.
The six-hour option put forward by the Shopping Hours Reform Council differs only by degree from the normal eight-hour shopping day. A half day, by contrast, is a step-change difference.

Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman speaks of a normal eight-hour shopping day. Most of the large stores now open from 8 o'clock in the morning until 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening. Thus, a normal shopping day is 11 or 12 hours.

Mr. Bayley: I speak of my constituency. With the exception of Thursday and Friday, the normal hours for almost all shops are 9 am to 5 pm or 5.30 pm. It is a shopping day of about eight hours. If the hon. Member is arguing that the nature of retailing is changing in such a way that more and more shops open 12 hours, he will have to accept that the argument for Sunday opening is weakened and is getting weaker day by day. When that is coupled with the implications of the Government's deregulation legislation, which will enable and encourage shopkeepers to open more hours of the day, the argument that some people cannot shop during the week will become less and less valid.
I should like to say a word or two about employee protection. I welcome the Government's concessions in this regard, but, as we all know, real protection will be impossible to enforce by statute. In the real world of nods and winks, shop workers realise that they will progress only if they conform to the wishes of their employers. When an employer wants seven-day opening, employees will, at the very least, compromise their career prospects, and perhaps even risk their jobs, if they do not go along.
Anyone who wants a future in the retail trade will have to agree to work on Sundays, and most will agree. Work will have to come first, and families second, seven days a week rather than just six. Shop workers know that protection can be obtained only by their going to an industrial tribunal and they realise that such redress is slow, that the penalties are inadequate and that, even if the judgment goes their way, their chances of reinstatement in employment are virtually nil.
Shop workers will have seen the press reports appearing even at a time when one might have thought that the retail companies would be keeping a low profile. I refer to the period of the passage of this legislation. There have been newspaper reports of the firing of shop workers who refused to work on Sundays and of the letter to Sainsbury managers telling them that if they wanted to keep their jobs they would have to go in on Sundays.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They retracted it.

Mr. Bayley: Of course. They would, wouldn't they?
We all know that anyone who wants a career in a major chain that opens seven days a week will have to be prepared to work on Sunday.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the best form of protection would be the old Puritan idea of double time on Sunday? There is some irony in the compromise that resulted in the proposal of the hon.

Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—I refer to amendment No. 14—with a view to protecting Christmas, which the Puritans were against. The Bill is riding roughshod over all employment traditions and practices in this nation.

Mr. Bayley: I agree that double time would be a very good thing, but—sadly—we know that that will not happen. As such protection is not available, some other protection is needed.
The House has voted for a measure of Sunday trading. This will result in people who are employed in the retail trade having to work on Sunday. The legal protection embodied in the Bill simply will not amount to real protection for most employees. Protection can be provided only by a decision of Parliament that shops are not allowed to open at certain times and that any shopkeeper opening will be breaking the law. This amendment is a compromise. It provides that all shops will be able to open on the first part of Sunday, but that only small shops will be allowed to open for the rest of the day. Under all the proposals, the latter has been agreed to.
I should like, finally, to deal with a couple of technical points. The amendment proposes what was contained in the original Retailers for Shops Act Reform and Keep Sunday Special compromise proposal at the time of the Second Reading. The compromise was that shopping should be allowed throughout the day on the four Sundays before Christmas. That is a realistic and practical proposition, and it is provided for in the compromise that I propose.
At the time of the Second Reading, the SHRC presented an eight-hour opening period as a compromise. As we discovered in Committee, the period of disruption caused by shopping will be not eight hours but, taking into account the shopping-up period, eight and a half hours.

Mr. Fabricant: Six hours.

Mr. Bayley: It is eight and a half hours. Shops will be allowed to open from 10 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the evening, and people will be able to continue shopping until 6.30. That was presented as a compromise, but it was never a genuine compromise.
This issue has divided the House deeply for far longer than the period of my membership. If hon. Members want a compromise that will allow a measure of shopping on Sunday for those to whom that is important but also provide a measure of real protection for shop workers and their families, amendment No. 38 is a way forward, and I recommend it to the House.

Mr. John Marshall: Listening to some of the speeches tonight, I sensed that I was listening to individuals who rarely, if ever, go shopping. We have just heard a speech from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), in which he suggested that his amendment was a compromise and that supermarkets would open at 8.30 in the morning and people would rush out to shop at that time. If he went round supermarkets on Sundays, he would know that relatively few people go in before 11 o'clock in the morning.
Even if amendment No. 38, tabled by the hon. Member for York and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) were accepted, supermarkets would not open before 10 am. So the amendment provides a three-hour option. It does not seem to me that a shopping day of three hours for supermarkets can be described as a compromise.
Let hon. Members who are thinking of voting for amendment No. 38 remember that they would deprive the checkout girls at Tesco of £24 every Sunday. Instead of having a six-hour working Sunday, they would have a three-hour working Sunday. I do not believe that it is up to Members of Parliament to salve their consciences at the expense of checkout girls at Tesco, Sainsbury and Asda. Amendment No. 38 is not a compromise. It is anything but a compromise. It would cut the working day to three hours rather than six or six and a half hours.
Amendment No. 14 has been tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I believe that he is wrong to say that on Easter Sunday people do not want to go and shop. If people want to buy plants from a garden centre, they will frequently want to do so on Easter Sunday. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) made that point in Committee when we were talking about Easter Sunday. I had to remind the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that Easter day was always a Sunday. He did not seem to know that.

9 pm

Mr. Alton: If the hon. Gentleman will calm down for just a moment, will he be good enough to confirm that he does not believe that there should be any exemption for either Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday or Easter day?

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not true. I specifically offered to sign an amendment if he would limit it to Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday. I said to him that it was not right to impose his restrictions on individuals who wanted to go shopping for plants, go to DIY centres or to motor around the country on Easter Sunday. That is why I was willing to agree with him on Christmas day. I acted in the spirit of compromise, but he wanted all or nothing and was not willing to give way.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will accept, because of his deep knowledge of the calendar, that Christmas day rarely falls on a Sunday. The festival of Easter begins on the Friday before Easter. Good Friday is a good example. It was once a special day in this country. It no longer is. Will not Easter day and Christmas day go precisely the same way as Good Friday if the hon. Gentleman does not support an amendment such as mine tonight?

Mr. Marshall: There is no reason why. It is a defensive position for spokesmen of the Church to come to the House and say, "Unless you give us the protection of telling people that they cannot shop on Easter day and Christmas day, those days will go the way of Good Friday." It is up to the churches in this country to have a message to give to the people of this country.
I was surprised today to receive a letter from the Bishop of London. I looked for a letter from the Bishop of London before we voted last Monday. Did I get one? No. Have I ever had a letter from him on overseas aid? No. Did I receive a letter from the Bishop of London when the House dealt with the abortion measure introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill? No. The only issue that seems to concern the Bishop of London is Sunday trading.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marshall: The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, so I will not give way to Northern Irish Members. If the churches of this country had a message for the people—

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Will you confirm that in discussing any motion before the House we are all equal within the House and that for a Member to refuse to give way to a person who comes from another part of the Kingdom is a shame on British democracy although it may reflect the attitude of the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): All hon. Members are indeed equal, whatever part of the United Kingdom they represent, but when an hon. Member has the Floor it is entirely up to him or her whether to give way.

Rev. William McCrea: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Will you help me? As I seemingly have no right to intervene, will I have the right to vote at the end of the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to guide him on that.

Mr. Marshall: What I was really saying was that the Bill affects certain parts of the United Kingdom and not others. Those who heard my speech last time the House discussed the Bill will know that I gave way seven times during my speech. I am happy to give way, but I ought to give priority to those whose constituents will be affected by the Bill rather than to others whose constituents will not.

Mr. Alton: rose—

Mr. Marshall: To show that I am a man of tolerance, I will give way to the Jack-in-the-box on the Liberal Benches.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but will he correct the record? He complained a few moments ago about the Bishop of London. The Bishop of London was not the Bishop of London when the measure that I promoted was before the House. The then Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, was a considerable supporter of that Bill and spoke in favour of it in the other place.

Mr. Marshall: I did not think that that Bill actually reached the other place, but the then Bishop of London did not see fit to write to the then hon. Member for Hendon, South about it in any event. This is the only piece of legislation coming through the House about which I have ever had a letter from the Bishop of London. It says something about the priorities of the Church that this is the only matter on which it sees fit to write to me. I would prefer it to write to me about overseas aid or some of the other great moral issues facing us.
There are good reasons why supermarkets should be allowed to open on Sunday. First, it is what the customer wants. It is no use the hon. Member for Mossley Hill referring to opinion polls. The fact is that more housewives go shopping on a Sunday than on a Monday, a Tuesday or a Wednesday. When I went round various supermarkets last autumn I asked people why they were shopping on that particular day. They told me that it was because it was convenient. The ladies were able to persuade their husbands to go with them, and some of the husbands may have paid the bill at the end. The children were out with


them. On one occasion, I saw a son of about 40 taking his 70-year-old mother shopping. He had shopped for himself on the Saturday and was shopping in a different part of London with his mother on the Sunday. The consumer wants it. The housewife wants it.
Secondly, employees want it. A large number of them work only on a Sunday. They ask us to let them keep their Sunday money because they need it. It is not right for hon. Members to salve their consciences by preventing shopworkers from earning £48.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be most grateful if the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) would sit properly in the Chamber.

Mr. Marshall: The third reason why supermarkets should be allowed to open on Sunday is that they offer—

Mr. Bayley: Before the hon. Member makes his third point, he has said that it is wrong of those such as myself who support the compromise half-day amendment to seek to deprive Sunday shopworkers of part of their earnings. Did he not hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) say that the Home Office, on its own research that it commissioned from London Economics, had found that if the Shopping Hours Reform Council's proposal went through it would cut the number of whole-time equivalent retail jobs by some 5,000? So what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for—more opening on Sunday—will redistribute jobs, not create more, and will reduce the number of jobs and therefore the number of opportunities for people who need the money to earn it by working in retailing.

Mr. Marshall: I do not necessarily accept that if shops open for a longer time, one will end up with fewer jobs. It does not seem very logical. As one who was for many years a professional economist, I have always known that economic forecasts were never as precise as the hon. Gentleman seeks to make them. It was always said that if one had five economists in a room one would have five different opinions, unless Lord Keynes was one of them, in which case there would be six. So I do not accept that a particular survey makes that point.
The third reason why I believe that supermarkets should be allowed to open, not for the half-day option, but for somewhat longer than the three hours proposed by the hon. Member for York, is that prices in supermarkets are substantially lower than elsewhere. I have told the House before of a visit that I made to two shops in my constituency. One was 7-Eleven, the sort of shop that the hon. Member for York would keep open all day, and the other was Food Giant, a large supermarket. The basket of goods bought from Food Giant cost £13·74; precisely the same goods from the 7-Eleven store cost £18·35—

Mr. Lord: Which one makes the most profit?

Mr. Marshall: The 7-Eleven store has never been a particularly successful retailer, while Food Giant, which is part of the Gateway chain, has been relatively successful. Neither of the two stores is brilliantly profitable, but Food Giant is slightly more profitable than 7-Eleven. However, I do not think that that is relevant to the issue, which is whether the customer should have the opportunity to do whatever he or she wants to do. The question we should

address is whether the pensioners of Hendon should have the chance to buy pints of milk at 25p from Food Giant or at 38p from 7-Eleven. I believe that many customers would prefer to shop at low prices rather than to be cajoled or forced into shops with goods at high prices.
Today, one or two hon. Members have talked about the cost of Sunday opening and have mentioned refuse. Everyone connected with local authorities knows that every retailer has to have a trade refuse agreement with the local authority—that is certainly true of larger retailers. The store will have to pay for any refuse around it to be collected. I know that a certain amount of refuse is created on Sunday, but it is normally created by take-away food restaurants which are not subject to opening restrictions under the Bill. It is perfectly possible for Burger King to open at almost any time on a Sunday, create refuse and not pay for it to be taken away.
Parking is a subject which frequently upsets my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). She should recognise that the one group in society that frequently supply car parking spaces for their customers to use are supermarkets. People visiting supermarkets in my constituency park in the supermarket car park. Difficulties would arise in my constituency if supermarkets were told that they could not open and people had to shop in Golders Green road, where double parking frequently occurs. Parking problems there are a thousand times worse than outside any supermarket.
People have shown that they like Sunday shopping. Individuals like to work on Sunday, and are queuing up to do so. We should listen to the voice of the British people. We have heard the name of Churchill mentioned this evening; I should like to quote the words of Lord Randolph Churchill, who said, "Trust the people". I believe that if we trust the people we shall obtain a perfectly satisfactory compromise.

Mr. Fabricant: I do not intend to reiterate a number of the points that have already been made today and in Committee. The same issues were raised when I had the privilege to serve on the Committee that discussed the private Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), the Shops (Amendment) Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) raised a number of interesting issues. He said that small village shops would suffer if supermarkets were allowed to open on Sundays. In Lichfield, rightly or wrongly, the supermarkets open on Sundays—Tesco and Safeway both do so—and the village shops around Lichfield are thriving. There is a market for the supermarket and there is also a market for the small corner shop—the two are not mutually exclusive.
A number of hon. Members have said that there is no demand for Sunday trading—that is incredible, and I wonder whether they have ever been shopping on a Sunday. When I listen to some hon. Members, I wonder whether they shop at all. They may have husbands, wives or even, heaven forbid, servants who shop for them. As a single man, I have to shop on a Sunday and I can tell the House that the supermarkets are full—that is not only my personal experience; research shows that 25 million people now shop regularly on Sunday. A total of 11 million people shop every Sunday, so to say that there is no demand for shopping on Sundays is ridiculous.
The option to shop only on Sunday mornings is equally ridiculous. For those of us who work hard, which includes


all 651 Members of the House, Sunday is the only opportunity for a lie-in. That means getting up, perhaps listening to the omnibus edition of the Archers, gradually getting dressed at 11.15 and strolling to the shops at midday. If shops closed after midday, there would be no opportunity to shop.
Some people in Lichfield would condemn me for listening to the omnibus edition of the Archers and others would say that I should be at the cathedral, which is only 50 yards from where I live. On some Sunday mornings, I do worship at the cathedral. How could I do that if I were expected to shop at the same time on Sunday mornings? It would not be practical.
9.15 pm
Another amendment says that, as a result of deregulation, ladies and gentlemen can shop from 9 o'clock in the evening until midnight on weekdays. That is a fallacy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) asked, what lady in her right mind living in an inner city would go out at 11 o'clock at night and push her trolley round a shop? How can that be an alternative to shopping on a Sunday?
If the amendment were passed and if Third Reading did not go through, 180,000 people who now work in supermarkets and stores on Sundays would find themselves out of a job. Is that what hon. Members on either side want? For those worried about premium pay, may I simply point out that people who work on Sundays receive on average 1·9 times the pay that they would get on a weekday.
This group of amendments does not make sense and I urge the House to reject them.

Mr. Couchman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on the way in which he introduced his amendments. He made an eloquent and elegant opening speech to introduce what are, none the less, wrecking amendments. Both he and the House know that. He said that shutting large shops on Sundays would ease matters for small shops. In saying that, without that pressure, small shops would not have to open on Sundays, he revealed his true position, for he would much prefer it if no shops opened on Sundays.
My right hon. Friend's views would find some sympathy from the group OPEN which has encouraged and exhorted hon. Members, as it did in its letter to me dated 21 February in which it suggested that we should support my right hon. Friend's amendments because they would take the pressure off small shops and allow them to open on Sundays, keeping all large shops shut. It quoted evidence from a London Economics survey, which forecast that if the Bill is enacted, 5,000 jobs will be lost in the small shops sector. If that figure is correct—I do not for a moment believe that it is—it compares with the 180,000 people who now work mostly in the large shops sector, who would lose their jobs if the amendments were passed.
Those who lose their jobs will lose an income that is important to their households and would not qualify for redundancy pay. Many people who work on Sundays are students who value an opportunity to add to their grants or loans.
We have heard a lot about employee rights from opponents of Sunday shopping. I received a letter, dated 16 February, from the deputy general secretary of USDAW, Bill Connor. He states:

We welcome the incorporation of an employee rights package into the Sunday Trading Bill, which was agreed on Wednesday, 9th February 1994, ensuring that Sunday working will be on a voluntary basis in the retail sector for existing and future employees. Given the level of turnover and the number of part-time workers in the industry, we particularly welcome the right of access to a tribunal without any qualifying terms.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The rights of future workers, on which we lost the amendment, are not covered.

Mr. Couchman: I am more inclined to take the word of the deputy general secretary of USDAW. He makes it clear that those rights will exist for present and future employees and that they will have access to a tribunal without any qualifying service or number of hours worked.
Interestingly, Mr. Connor also states:
If one looks specifically at premium payments, as an example, it is in the major companies with whom we have agreements that our members receive either double-time payments or some significant premium for working on a Sunday. In the smaller stores premium payments have virtually disappeared".
If the amendments are passed, they would restrict the number of people who work on a Sunday who would receive premium pay.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: We do not have any of those idiotic regulations in Scotland. How is anyone to shop on Monday if someone does not man the heating, lights and transport on Sunday? Is it not all a lot of bogus hypocrisy?

Mr. Couchman: I am interested in that intervention by my hon. and learned Friend. It is not the first intervention from a Scottish Member. I think that it was the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) who, in a long intervention, said that his wife enjoyed shopping on Sundays. How many Scottish Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, will feel inclined to deprive English housewives of the right to shop in the shop of their choice on a Sunday while allowing their wives to continue to shop in whatever shop chooses to open in Scotland on Sunday?
In his letter, Mr. Connor also talks of an agreement that he and his union have reached with the major employers who make up the principal supporters of the Shopping Hours Reform Council. That agreement with Sainsbury, Tesco, Kingfisher, Boots, Dixons, Asda, Argyll, and W H Smith includes all sorts of undertakings and in it the employers
reaffirm their statement … that they will continue to pay current premium rates of pay to Sunday employees … that they would only require employees to give one month's notice of their intention to opt out of Sunday work … that they would incorporate the right to opt out of Sunday work into employees' terms and conditions of employment … that they would endeavour to make the opting-out procedure as simple as possible … that where an existing shop worker opts out of Sunday work the employer will use his/her best endeavour to reschedule the employee's lost working hours elsewhere subject to the needs of the business.
Interestingly, the agreement also states that if the
standard working week for shop floor employees shall not exceed 39 hours … hours worked in excess of this will be paid at currently agreed rates.
Because of that agreement, Mr. Connor exhorts the House to give a speedy passage to the Bill and asks us all to vote for the Third Reading.
That is an interesting letter from an erstwhile opponent of Sunday trading and the change has come about because USDAW has sensibly responded to the needs, desires and


wants of its members. Many of them work in large shops which, if the amendment were passed, would be forced to close.
We must lay to rest the question of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I shall quote in full a paragraph in the letter from Mr. Nigel Matthews, the group secretary of Sainsbury, which I am sure hon. Members have received. It states:
I understand that during the debate on the Sunday Trading Bill this Wednesday there may be some who will seek to link the provisions of the Deregulation Bill to Sunday trading. I would like to make Sainsbury's position clear on this issue. While we generally welcome deregulation, we would not expect to make any significant changes in our trading hours. Our trading hours reflect the needs of our customers, and we have no evidence from our current trading patterns that there is a widespread wish for people to shop extended hours on weekdays.
In her excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) advanced the case for rejecting the amendments and said that few housewives will wish to shop between 8 o'clock in the evening and midnight.

Mr. Alton: By saying that he hopes that we will negative the amendments, the hon. Gentleman implies that he opposes them all. Will he confirm that he is in favour of shops opening on Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday and on Easter day, as that is one of the amendments on which we shall vote?

Mr. Couchman: I think that very few shops will open on Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday and that, in general, very few, apart from convenience shops which presently open, will do so on Easter day.
These wrecking amendments of whatever strand should be opposed. I include the intriguing amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). That amendment would interest only a limited number of large shops. I suspect that it would suit the John Lewis group, which would wish to open its Waitrose supermarkets but not its major stores. That may be where the idea came from.
I was intrigued that we were offered a mornings-only option this time when on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) offered an afternoon-only option for the opening of large shops.
If these substantial amendments are approved, they will stop many do-it-yourself stores, garden centres and supermarkets opening. That would be a tragedy for do-it-yourself stores and garden centres because it would deprive many people of the opportunity to buy the goods that they want for their leisure time on Sundays.

Sir Roger Moate: I apologise for not being here for part of the debate. I was here when my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) moved his amendment and I place on record my strongest possible support for it. If by some mischance it should fall, I shall support the mornings-only option. I urge the House to take this opportunity once again to try to maintain, as far as we can in this day and age, the special qualities of our Sunday.
My hon. Friend and good neighbour the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that these are wrecking amendments. That is nonsense and fails to understand the nature of the legislative procedures of the

House. Some people in the House and outside suggest that when the House has taken one vote its will has been expressed for good and all and thereafter anybody who seeks to change or amend that decision is flouting the will of Parliament. That is nonsense and I hope that every hon. Member understands that.
The will of the House or of Parliament is tested only when legislation has passed through all its stages in both Houses and has been tested in Committee and by the resolve of the House being tested in every possible way. Our measures are law only when they receive Royal Assent. It is quite right and proper that at every stage in this House, including Third Reading, and in another place, hon. Members should seek to change the legislation in any way they can. That is exactly what we are trying to do, and rightly so, and we shall continue to do so.
I place on record again my sadness and disappointment that we did not vote to keep Sunday special. I hope that subsequent events will have persuaded enough hon. Members to take this further opportunity to prevent us from going down that sad road.
9.30 pm
Listening to some of the arguments that we have heard before—it is not right to rehearse them again today—one would feel that we are simply arguing about the checkout in Tesco in 1994. It is much more than that; we are arguing about the nature of the society that we have inherited and what we pass on to future generations. The decision that we make today on the vote and the legislation is about much more than the retail war of the 1980s and 1990s—the DIY war and the superstore war. We are making a decision that will outlast all those factors and will influence our society for 100 years to come.
When we open up Sunday trading without any regulation, although none of us can forecast what will happen tomorrow or the day after, it is a reasonable assumption that in years to come Sunday will be exactly the same as every other day of the week. That is the decision that we are taking and we should not take it lightly or throw away the opportunity to say that we wish to keep Sunday a quieter day and a special day, and to seize every opportunity to do so.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but I do not follow his assumption that Sunday will become like any other day. That is not the case in Scotland, where Sunday trading is allowed. There are those who say that Scotland is different from England and Wales, but we heard earlier in the debate that there is no restriction on Sunday trading in many states of the United States. In many of the states of New England, where there are small shops, Sunday is still a very different day, although there is derestriction.

Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend has made that point on many occasions. It is a matter of judgment. I am talking not about Scotland, but about England and Wales; I am talking not about the United States, but about our society. We are trying to make a judgment about the shape of our society in years to come. I really cannot believe that, given the trend of events, if we open the doors to deregulated shopping, we shall not see the end of Sunday as we know it. Let us make a longer-term judgment for the future.
It is self-evident that if we have total derestriction Sunday will cease to be a special day. Whether it is next year, in 10 years' time or in the lifetime of our children or


our children's children, that is the decision we are taking for our society and we should be very careful about what we are doing.

Mr. Alton: I strongly support the point that the hon. Gentleman is making and draw his attention to the evidence that the Church of Scotland Church and Nation Committee gave to the Home Secretary, which made it clear that it believes
that the experiment in Scotland was not a success and was no model to be followed elsewhere.

Sir Roger Moate: The House is now becoming familiar with those arguments.
I wish to make one further point about small shops. The amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) appeals particularly because it allows the opening of small shops and prevents the opening of very large stores, but not necessarily garden centres.
When my hon. Friends—I do not doubt their sincerity —say that they believe in maintaining small shops and defending rural post offices and then argue for total deregulation and for the high streets and the major supermarkets to be open all day Sunday, I begin to doubt their judgment. Frankly, the one major threat to the small shops are the major out-of-town centres and the large supermarkets. If we legislate, as we shall, to allow major stores to open six days a week, 24 hours a day, surely that will provide ample opportunity for shoppers to purchase goods at cheaper prices in supermarkets, if they wish.

Dr. Robert Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that many small shops are on the brink, and that the Bill could push them beyond the brink?

Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend is right. This is a turning point for many small shopkeepers. Unrestricted Sunday opening will deliver a tremendous extra power into the hands of major retailers and large supermarkets. I cannot believe that Parliament wants that to happen. Many small shops, such as rural sub-post offices, will face a further and greater challenge. We should be trying to help those businesses, which have suffered most damage in recent years, yet no one seems anxious to help them—save those who support my right hon. Friend's amendment.
I hope that the House will take this late opportunity, seize the chance to back my right hon. Friend's amendment and send a message to the country that we will protect smaller shops, keep Sunday special and protect full-time jobs the rest of the week—albeit at the loss of some part-time jobs on Sunday.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Harry Cohen: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I missed the vote through no fault of my own. I came over from Millbank as soon as it was called, and arrived in good time; but there was a great logjam, and it was impossible to get through, although I pushed and shoved. May I urge you, Madam Speaker, to call off the Division and call another so that I can exercise my rights? This is very important, because many of my constituents have raised the matter with me and want me to vote on it.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has just pointed out that he arrived on the premises, and in the precinct, in

time to vote. The fact that a lot of hon. Members are milling around is not the responsibility of the Chair. Hon. Members know that there are Divisions tonight, and they should know which Lobbies they are going to go into. I have watched the clock very carefully, and I am not prepared to have a recount. I caution hon. Members that Divisions are taking place; they must know which Lobby they are going to enter, and they must be prepared to do so. That is the end of it.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I arrived on time, and it was impossible to get through the Lobby, although I was here a good two minutes before the doors were locked. My constituents, too, want me to vote consistently, as I have voted before.

Madam Speaker: The system has been functioning in the House for many years. Very seldom do Members of Parliament find it impossible to get into the Division Lobby of their choice, and I am not prepared to accept that as an excuse tonight, simply because Members of Parliament are standing around. Let me repeat that hon. Members know the way in which they will vote on these issues. The Chair has kept the Division Lobbies open for the appropriate time and hon. Members are responsible for themselves.

Mr. Alton: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you ask the Serjeant at Arms to conduct an inquiry into the way in which— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to sit down.

Mr. Alton: (seated and covered): Once the vote has been concluded, Madam Speaker, will you ask the Serjeant at Arms to give you a report about the scenes outside the Lobby? You were not able to observe those scenes, Madam Speaker, but some of us did, and they were more reminiscent of the Portobello road than of the House of Commons. They clearly prevented some hon. Members from exercising their right to vote. We hope that you will ensure that there is no repetition of those scenes when the next vote is taken, on the exclusion of Christmas day and Easter Sunday from the provisions of the Bill, and on whether people should be able to shop on those days.

Madam Speaker: Of course, if it is necessary. Are there any more points of order?

Mr. Tim Renton: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman looks far smarter like that, if I may say so.

Mr. Renton: (seated and covered): With the greatest respect, Madam Speaker, I have voted in the House on many occasions, over quite a few years. When I arrived in the Lobby just outside to vote just now, there was a considerable scrimmage, and it was very hard to get through to the No Lobby. People were explaining which way to go. I must say that I think that the Division should be recalled on account of the amount of pressurising and lobbying that was going on outside. I found it impossible to get through to the No Lobby.

Madam Speaker: I am very surprised indeed to hear that hon. Members did not know which way to vote and were being persuaded. I am waiting for the Tellers to deliver the figures.

Mr. Quentin Davies: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have succeeded in voting this evening, but I was just in the Dining Room when the Division began. There has been a new factor during the past few months. It is perfectly true that, for years and years, Members have managed to get into the Division Lobbies on time. There is a new factor. From 7 Millbank, where I have my office, it takes at least six minutes, even without any—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am well aware of that factor. I have in fact paced it myself.

The House having divided: Ayes 239, Noes 300.

Division No.141]
[9.36 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dafis, Cynog


Ainger, Nick
Dalyell, Tam


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davidson, Ian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dixon, Don


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Dykes, Hugh


Bayley, Hugh
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Enright, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Etherington, Bill


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evennett, David


Bennett, Andrew F.
Faulds, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Forman, Nigel


Berry, Dr. Roger
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blunkett, David
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Body, Sir Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Bowden, Andrew
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Galloway, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gapes, Mike


Burt, Alistair
Garrett, John


Butterfill, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Byers, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Caborn, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Churchill, Mr
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hannam, Sir John


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Connarty, Michael
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Corbett, Robin
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cormack, Patrick
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim 
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cox, Tom
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)





Hunter, Andrew
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Illsley, Eric
Pawsey, James


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Pike, Peter L.


Jessel, Toby
Porter, David (Waveney)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prescott, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Keen, Alan
Robathan, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Khabra, Piara S.
Rogers, Allan


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rooney, Terry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McAllion, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McCrea, Rev William
Spearing, Nigel


Macdonald, Calum
Speller, John


McFall, John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maclennan, Robert
Spink, Dr Robert


McMaster, Gordon
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Maginnis, Ken
Sumberg, David


Mahon, Alice
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Meacher, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mills, Iain
Wallace, James


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Walley, Joan


Moate, Sir Roger
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wareing, Robert N


Morley, Elliot
Waterson, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wicks, Malcolm


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mudie, George
Winnick, David


Mullin, Chris
Wise, Audrey


Murphy, Paul
Wolfson, Mark


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wray, Jimmy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wright, Dr Tony


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Bill Olner and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Michael Lord.


Patchett, Terry





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Austin-Walker, John


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Ancram, Michael
Baldry, Tony


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Armstrong, Hilary
Barron, Kevin


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bates, Michael


Ashby, David
Batiste, Spencer


Aspinwall, Jack
Bellingham, Henry


Atkins, Robert
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Betts, Clive






Blair, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gillan, Cheryl


Boswell, Tim
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Gunnell, John


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burden, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Butler, Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Doug


Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Heppell, John


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Congdon, David
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Couchman, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hutton, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Ingram, Adam


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Darling, Alistair
Jamieson, David


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Janner, Greville


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Denham, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dewar, Donald
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jowell, Tessa


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, Sir David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Leighton, Ron


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fisher, Mark
Lidington, David


Flynn, Paul
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLeish, Henry


Fry, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fyfe, Maria
McWilliam, John


Gardiner, Sir George
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Madel, Sir David


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gerrard, Neil
Major, Rt Hon John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Malone, Gerald





Mandelson, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marland, Paul
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marlow, Tony
Sims, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Speed, Sir Keith


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Milburn, Alan
Spring, Richard


Miller, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stephen, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stern, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stevenson, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Norris, Steve
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Streeter, Gary


O'Hara, Edward
Sweeney, Walter


O'Neill, Martin
Sykes, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Page, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Parry, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tracey, Richard


Pickles, Eric
Trend, Michael


Pope, Greg
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tyler, Paul


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powell, William (Corby)
Viggers, Peter


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Rendel, David
Ward, John


Richards, Rod
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Widdecombe, Ann


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Willetts, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilshire, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wilson, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Wood, Timothy


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Tom
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. John Marshall and


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Mr. Michael Fabricant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 3, line 37, after 'of' insert 'retail'.

No. 56, in page 3, line 39, leave out from 'below' to end of line 43 and insert
'or
(b) any shop in respect of which a notice under paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act (shops occupied by persons observing the Jewish Sabbath) has effect'—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 1

RESTRICTIONS ON SUNDAY OPENING OF LARGE SHOPS

Amendment proposed, No. 38, in page 3, line 45, leave out from 'shop' to end of line 46 and insert—
'(a) in respect of any Sunday other than a Sunday specified in sub-paragraph (b) below, before 1 pm, and


(b) in respect of any Sunday falling within the period in any year commencing with 27th November and ending with 24th December, before 4 pm.'.—[Sir John Hannam.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be glad if the Serjeant would ensure that the Lobby doors are clear so that hon. Members are able to vote. I should like a report as soon as the Division is over.

The House having divided: Ayes 258, Noes 308.

Division No. 142]
[7.50 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Day, Stephen


Ainger, Nick
Denham, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Donohoe, Brian H.


Amess, David
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Enright, Derek


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Battle, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Evennett, David


Bell, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Forman, Nigel


Benton, Joe
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Dr. Roger
Foulkes, George


Blunkett, David
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Galloway, George


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gapes, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John


Brazier, Julian
George, Bruce


Butterfill, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Byers, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Caborn, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Cann, Jamie
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Churchill, Mr
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hanson, David


Cohen, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harris, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cormack, Patrick
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cox, Tom
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Bob
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Andrew


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)





Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Jamieson, David
Parry, Robert


Jessel, Toby
Patchett, Terry


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Johnston, Sir Russell
Pawsey, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Raynsford, Nick


Khabra, Piara S.
Reid, Dr John


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robathan, Andrew


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rogers, Allan


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Simpson, Alan


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Loyden, Eddie
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Luff, Peter
Snape, Peter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spearing, Nigel


McAllion, John
Spellar, John


McAvoy, Thomas
Spencer, Sir Derek


McCrea, Rev William
Spink, Dr Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McFall, John
Straw, Jack


Maclennan, Robert
Sumberg, David


McMaster, Gordon
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marek, Dr John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Vaz, Keith


Mates, Michael
Walden, George


Meacher, Michael
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Michael, Alun
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wareing, Robert N


Moate, Sir Roger
Waterson, Nigel


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Watson, Mike


Morgan, Rhodri
Wicks, Malcolm


Morley, Elliot
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wilkinson, John


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mudie, George
Winnick, David


Mullin, Chris
Wise, Audrey


Murphy, Paul
Wolfson, Mark


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wray, Jimmy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wright, Dr Tony


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Olner, William
Sir John Hannam and


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Hugh Bayley.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkins, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Michael
Austin-Walker, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Arbuthnot, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Armstrong, Hilary
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Ashby, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Aspinwall, Jack
Barron, Kevin






Bates, Michael
Fry, Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Fyfe, Maria


Bellingham, Henry
Gallie, Phil


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Betts, Clive
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garnier, Edward


Blair, Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Booth, Hartley
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyes, Roland
Gorst, John


Bradley, Keith
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bright, Graham
Gunnell, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hague, William


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Harman, Ms Harriet


Burden, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Butler, Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hayes, Jerry


Canavan, Dennis
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Congdon, David
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Ingram, Adam


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dewar, Donald
Jowell, Tessa


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkwood, Archy


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dowd, Jim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knox, Sir David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dunn, Bob
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Eggar, Tim
Legg, Barry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Leighton, Ron


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lewis, Terry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fisher, Mark
Lightbown, David


Flynn, Paul
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Foster, Don (Bath)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclean, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McLeish, Henry





McLoughlin, Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Madel, Sir David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Major, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malone, Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mandelson, Peter
Sims, Roger


Marland, Paul
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marlow, Tony
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maxton, John
Soames, Nicholas


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Speed, Sir Keith


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Merchant, Piers
Spring, Richard


Milburn, Alan
Sproat, Iain


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mills, Iain
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Monro, Sir Hector
Stephen, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stem, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Stevenson, George


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stewart, Allan


Nelson, Anthony
Stott, Roger


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Streeter, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Norris, Steve
Sykes, John


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thomason, Roy


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pope, Greg
Tyler, Paul


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rathbone, Tim
Wallace, James


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Rendel, David
Ward, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Widdecombe, Ann


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Willetts, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilshire, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wilson, Brian


Rooney, Terry
Wood, Timothy


Rowlands, Ted
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. John Marshall, and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Michael Fabricant.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Sunday Trading Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 3, line 46, at end insert—


but this sub-paragraph has effect subject to sub-paragraph (4) below.
(4) The exemption conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above does not apply where the Sunday is Easter Day or Christmas Day'.—[Mr. Alton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 247.

Division No. 143]
[10.06 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Alistair


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davidson, Ian


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Allen, Graham
Day, Stephen


Alton, David
Denham, John


Amess, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dixon, Don


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Austin-Walker, John
Donohoe, Brian H.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dover, Den


Barnes, Harry
Duncan, Alan


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beggs, Roy
Dykes, Hugh


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Bendall, Vivian
Eggar, Tim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bennett, Andrew F.
Enright, Derek


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evennett, David


Blunkett, David
Fatchett, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Faulds, Andrew


Body, Sir Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Flynn, Paul


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Andrew
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Galbraith, Sam


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Byers, Stephen
Gallie, Phil


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Callaghan, Jim
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Garrett, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Canavan, Dennis
Godsiff, Roger


Cann, Jamie
Golding, Mrs Llin


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Cash, William
Gordon, Mildred


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Graham, Thomas


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Churchill, Mr
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clapham, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hain, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hanson, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Hargreaves, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harris, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Harvey, Nick


Cousins, Jim
Heppell, John


Cox, Tom
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cryer, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoey, Kate


Dafis, Cynog
Home Robertson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hood, Jimmy





Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hunter, Andrew
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Illsley, Eric
Olner, William


Ingram, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Parry, Robert


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Patchett, Terry


Jessel, Toby
Pawsey, James


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Johnston, Sir Russell
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prescott, John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Randall, Stuart


Keen, Alan
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Reid, Dr John


Khabra, Piara S.
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robathan, Andrew


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Knapman, Roger
Rooney, Terry


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Lidington, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lord, Michael
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luff, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAllion, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCrea, Rev William
Spearing, Nigel


Macdonald, Calum
Spellar, John


McFall, John
Spencer, Sir Derek


McKelvey, William
Spink, Dr Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McLeish, Henry
Steen, Anthony


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Stephen, Michael


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Sumberg, David


Maginnis, Ken
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Martlew, Eric
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mates, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tyler, Paul


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Walden, George


Michael, Alun
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wallace, James


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walley, Joan


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wareing, Robert N


Moate, Sir Roger
Waterson, Nigel


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Watson, Mike


Morgan, Rhodri
Wicks, Malcolm


Morley, Elliot
Widdecombe, Ann


Morris, Rt Hon A. (WY'nshawe)
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wilkinson, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mudie, George
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mullin, Chris
Winnick, David


Murphy, Paul
Wise, Audrey






Wolfson, Mark



Wray, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Dr Tony
Ms Liz Lynne and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mrs. Ray Michie.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fisher, Mark


Aitken, Jonathan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alexander, Richard
Forth, Eric


Ancram, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fry, Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Ashby, David
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Aspinwall, Jack
Garnier, Edward


Atkins, Robert
Gerrard, Neil


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baldry, Tony
Gorst, John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Batiste, Spencer
Hague, William


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Betts, Clive
Hanley, Jeremy


Blair, Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Bowis, John
Hayes, Jerry


Boyes, Roland
Heald, Oliver


Brandreth, Gyles
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bright, Graham
Hendry, Charles


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hicks, Robert


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hoon, Geoffrey


Burden, Richard
Horam, John


Butcher, John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Butler, Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clappison, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Jack, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jamieson, David


Coe, Sebastian
Janner, Greville


Coffey, Ann
Jenkin, Bernard


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Congdon, David
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Conway, Derek
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Key, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Cran, James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Knox, Sir David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dewar, Donald
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dickens, Geoffrey
Legg, Barry


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Leigh, Edward


Dowd, Jim
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Madel, Sir David





Maitland, Lady Olga
Sims, Roger


Major, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mariand, Paul
Soames, Nicholas


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Speed, Sir Keith


Maxton, John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spring, Richard


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sproat, Iain


Merchant, Piers
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Miller, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevenson, George


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Allan


Moss, Malcolm
Streeter, Gary


Mowlam, Marjorie
Sweeney, Walter


Nelson, Anthony
Sykes, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Norris, Steve
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Hara, Edward
Thomason, Roy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Thumham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Patnick, Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patten, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pope, Greg
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Waller, Gary


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Rendel, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wood, Timothy


Rooker, Jeff
Worthington, Tony


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sackville, Tom



Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. John Marshall and


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Michael Fabricant.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 4, line 7, leave out from 'is' to 'medical' in line 8 and insert
'not open for the sale of any goods other than'.
No. 30, in page 4, line 14, leave out from 'is' to 'food' and insert
'not open for the retail sale of any goods other than'.
No. 31, in page 4, line 38, after 'Sunday' insert
'for the serving of retail customers'.

No. 32, in page 5, line 16, after 'of' insert 'retail'.

No. 33, in page 5, line 30, at end insert 'retail'.

No. 34, in page 5, line 32, at end insert 'retail'.—[Mr. Peter Lioyd.]

Schedule 2

PROVISION SUPPLEMENTARY TO SCHEDULE 1

Amendments made: No, 55 in page 5, line 40, leave out '"Local authority" abd "shop" have' and insert '"shop" has'.

No. 57, in page 7, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 9 and insert—

'9.—(l) A person of the Jewish religion who is the occupier of a large shop may give to the local authority for the area in which the shop is situated a notice signed by him stating—

(a) that he is a person of the Jewish religion, and
(b) that he intends to keep the shop closed for the serving of customers on the Jewish Sabbath.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a shop occupied by a partnership or company shall be taken to be occupied by a person of the Jewish religion if, and only if, the majority of the partners or of the directors, as the case may be, are persons of that religion.

(3) A notice under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by an authorised person that the person giving the notice is a person of the Jewish religion.

(4) Where the occupier of the shop is a partnership or company—

(a) any notice under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be given by the majority of the partners or directors and, if not given by all of them, shall specify the names of the other partners or directors, and
(b) a certificate under sub-paragraph (3) above is required in relation to each of the persons by whom such a notice is given.

(5) Every local authority shall keep a register containing particulars of the name (if any) and address of every shop in respect of which a notice under sub-paragraph (1) above has effect.

(6) Any register kept under this paragraph—

(a) shall be open to inspection by members of the public at all reasonable times, and
(b) may be kept by means of a computer.

(7) If there is any change—

(a) in the occupation of a shop in respect of which a notice under sub-paragraph (1) above has effect, or
(b) in any partnership or among the directors of any company by which such a shop is occupied, the notice shall be taken to be cancelled at the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the change occurred, unless during that period, or within such further time as may be allowed by the local authority, a fresh notice is given under sub-paragraph (1) above in respect of the shop.

(8) Where a fresh notice is given under sub-paragraph (1) above by reason of a change of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (7) above, the local authority may dispense with the certificate required by sub-paragraph (3) above in the case of any person in respect of whom such a certificate has been provided in connection with a former notice in respect of that shop or any other shop in the area of the local authority.

(9) A notice given under sub-paragraph (1) above in respect of any shop shall be cancelled on application in that behalf being made to the local authority by the occupier of the shop.

(10) A person who, in a notice or certificate given for the purposes of this paragraph, makes a statement which is false in a material respect and which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(11) Where a person is convicted of an offence under sub-paragraph (10) above, the local authority may cancel any notice under sub-paragraph (1) above to which the offence relates.

(12) In this paragraph—

"authorised person", in relation to a notice under sub-paragraph (1) above, means—

(a) the Minister of the synagogue of which the person giving the notice is a member,
(b) the secretary of that synagogue, or
(c) any other person nominated for the purposes of this paragraph by the President of the London Committee of Deputies of the British Jews (otherwise known as the Board of Deputies of British Jews),

"large shop" has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to this Act, and

"secretary of a synagogue" has the same meaning as in Part IV of the Marriage Act 1949.'.

No. 58, in page 9, line 11, leave out from 'concerned'

to end of line 33.

No. 59, in page 9, line 37, leave out from second 'be' to 'includes' in line 41 and insert

'a shop in respect of which a notice has been given under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 above by the person who was then registered as the occupier of the shop; and the provisions of that paragraph in relation to the cancellation of such a notice shall have effect accordingly.

(2) In paragraph 9(8) above, the reference to a certificate provided in connection with a former notice'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 3

RIGHTS OF SHOPWORKERS AS RESPECTS SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 12, line 19, after 'Sunday' insert
'(whether or not as a result of previously giving an opting-in notice)'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 22.

No. 15, in page 13, line 18, leave out from 'means' to end of line 19 and insert—

'for shopworkers working in shops in respect of which a notice under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 has taken effect and has not ceased to have effect the period of one month beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given and for all other shopworkers the period of three months beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice was given'.

No. 18, in line 19, at end insert—

'Limitation on Working Hours on Sunday

6A. No shopworker shall be employed on Sunday for more than eight hours and any provision in any shopworker's contract of employment or in any agreement which requires, or may have the effect of requiring, that worker to be so employed for more than eight hours is unenforceable to the extent that it so requires or may so require.'.

No. 19, in page 14, line 16, at end insert—

'Right to enhanced pay for Sunday work

9A. A shopworker shall be entitled to remuneration from his employer in respect of shop work undertaken on a Sunday at a rate of pay which exceeds that which he earns in the case of shop work undertaken by him for that employer during his normal working hours on a weekday or in the case of a shopworker required to work only on a Sunday, at a rate of pay which exceeds that earned by a shopworker carrying out similar shop work for that employer during his normal working hours on a weekday.'.

No. 61, in line 16, at end insert—

'9A.(1) A shopworker working in a large shop on a Sunday shall be remunerated at twice the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that job.

(2) A shopworker working in any shop other than a large shop on a Sunday shall be remunerated at one and a half times the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that job.

(3) A complaint by a shopworker that he has not been remunerated as required by sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above may be presented to an industrial tribunal.

(4) An industrial tribunal shall not entertain a complaint under sub-paragraph (3) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which there occurred the action complained of, or where that action is part of a series of similar actions, the last of those actions, or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within the period of three months.

(5) Where on a complaint under sub-paragraph (3) above an industrial tribunal finds that the employer has failed to pay a shopworker the whole or part of the amount thereby required to be paid, the tribunal shall order the employer to pay the employee the amount which it finds due to him.

(6) Compensation payable under sub-paragraph (3) above shall not exceed the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the 1978 Act.

(7) In this paragraph, "large shop" has the same meaning in relation to a shop in this Schedule as it has in relation to a shop in Schedule 1.'.

Government amendment No. 23, and amendment No. 21, in page 16, line 33, at end insert—
'14A The extent of any failure by an employer to remunerate a shopworker as required under paragraph 9A above shall be regarded as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of that shopworker and the relevant provisions of Part I of the Wages Act 1986 shall accordingly apply in respect of that failure.'.

Mr. Lloyd: The amendment fulfils another commitment that I made in Committee. It makes explicit on the face of the Bill that the right to opt out of Sunday working subject to three months' notice is a continuing one. It removes any room for doubt that workers who opt into Sunday working retain the right to opt out subsequently if they wish to do so. The only limitation to that right will be the requirement to give employers three months' notice. Workers may opt in and out again on future occasions if they are so minded. I hope that the House will support the amendments.
I also undertook to introduce amendments that specify how shopworkers will be informed of their statutory rights under the Bill. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 do that by requiring employers to provide all new shopworkers and existing shopworkers opting in with a form describing their right to opt out at three months notice and advising them how they can appeal to a tribunal if they are dismissed for doing so or are treated detrimentally for that reason. The employer must provide each worker involved with the explanatory statement within two months. If he or she does not, the period of notice that the employee may give: if he or she wishes to opt out drops to one month. I hope that those amendments will meet with the approval of the House.
Earlier in the debate, reference was made to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and the power contained in it to repeal protection in a schedule—[Interruption.]

Mr. Pike: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. A Minister at the Dispatch Box is trying to explain the amendments and the House should come to order.

Mr. Pike: That is exactly my point of order, Madam Speaker. Although the Minister has a loud voice. it is extremely difficult to hear what is being said.

Madam Speaker: Absolutely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well hon. Members saying "Hear, hear"—I wish that they would obey my blandishments.

Mr. Lloyd: I was talking about the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I promised the House earlier that I would return to that subject and it is now germane to the amendments under discussion. That Bill has only just begun its progress through the House. Primary power to alter by order primary legislation is available in that Bill only to get rid of burdens on business. It cannot be used to get rid of necessary protections. We have included in schedule 3 provisions to protect shopworkers precisely because we consider such protections to be necessary.
The Government and I do not believe that a future Government or Parliament would take a different view —such an idea is far fetched. It is not possible for one Government or Parliament to speak for future ones. If a future Government or Parliament sought to use the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, once enacted, to

dismantle the protections in schedule 3, that could be a matter for the courts. The legitimacy of any order is finally a matter for the courts, not Ministers, to decide. As I am not a court, all that I can tell the House with authority is that the Government regard the protections in schedule 3 as necessary protections which should not be changed by order.
In answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), if any order that is introduced under the deregulation Bill is debated, it must be debated in the Chamber under the affirmative procedure. I think that that is an academic point. I commend the amendments to the House.

Ms Ruddock: First, may I respond to the amendments which the Minister moved? As he noted, they respond in part to concerns that we raised in Committee and we are more than willing to support them because they give force to our concerns.
I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 15, 18, 19 and 21. During the last day of our Committee proceedings on the Floor of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) proposed an amendment that sought to reduce the notice period for all shopworkers who opt out of Sunday working from three months to one month. He made the valid point that three months could be too long a period to keep an unhappy worker doing Sunday duties when he or she had chosen to opt out.
In responding, the Minister made much of the fact that, although large stores with significant numbers of employees could be expected to cope with only one month's notice of opting out, small shops, particularly specialist shops, could not. We have taken that point to heart and tabled amendment No. 15 to accommodate it. It seeks to provide that those who work for large shops covered by the Bill's registration provisions should be required to give only one month's notice of opting out and that those who work for small shops and other shops covered by the Bill should give three months' notice, as proposed by the Government.
Since our last debate, further ammunition to support our cause has been provided by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has struck a voluntary agreement with the Argyll group, Asda, Boots, Dixons, Kingfisher, Sainsbury, Tesco and W. H. Smith to the effect that only one month's notice of opting out will be required by those big companies. That agreement significantly undermines the Government's case and removes most of the objections to which the Minister alluded in his previous contributions. I hope that he will now be minded to reconsider and support our new amendment.
At the heart of the debate about Sunday trading has been the acceptance by virtually all hon. Members that Sunday is different from other days of the week. Most hon. Members have expressed some support for trying to preserve something of the special nature of that day. The Government have had to concede the special nature of Sunday by making express provisions in the Bill to limit large shops' trading to six hours and providing for an opting-measure by which employees can refuse to work on Sundays if they object to doing so.
If a significant number of people are to work on Sundays, albeit voluntarily, in the retail trade, it therefore follows that the House should consider their pay and conditions. The six-hour trading period for large shops


may have created the impression that shopworkers are likely to be at work for only six hours and that the number of hours that they will work will automatically be limited. As we discovered in Committee, that is not so. Large shops covered by the registration scheme will require their workers to be in post for at least six and a half hours and possibly even more because they must set up the tills, fill the shelves and carry out shutting-up procedures at the end of the six-hour trading period.
While that is the case for large shops, the Bill enables small shops to open for unrestricted hours on Sundays. It therefore follows that workers in small shops may be required to work for an unrestricted number of hours. That is inappropriate and at odds with the special nature of Sundays, so we have tabled an amendment to limit the hours of all shopworkers on Sundays to eight hours.
That cannot be an inconvenience or be against the financial interests of any shops that trade on Sundays. Eight hours is sufficient for any worker and if small shops open for longer hours they must make appropriate arrangements. If working on Sundays is to be voluntary, people cannot be coerced into working for more than eight hours, whether it is in a small or a large shop.
Shopworkers who work on Sundays must be remunerated in a way that takes into account the special nature of Sunday and the fact that workers have given up potential leisure time to be at work.
From our discussions with employers, we have realised that the pool of shopworkers who are willing to work voluntarily on Sundays is drawn from people who find the present premium payments attractive. In Committee, the Government opposed our amendment to provide for double-time payments for Sunday workers—[Interruption.] All those Conservative Members who have spoken today in support of the special nature of Sunday, and who are commenting from a sedentary position on what I am saying, should be willing to vote for the amendment, which will provide for enhanced payments for those who work on Sundays.

Mr. Lord: The hon. Lady knows full well that that argument will not wash with those Conservative Members who want to keep Sunday special. The only way adequately to protect the workers whom she wants to protect is to keep shops shut.

Ms Ruddock: I could accept the integrity of the hon. Gentleman's argument if he had proposed that all shops should shut on Sundays and I could have supported that proposal. He and other hon. Members have proposed that some shops should open and others close. The very shops that the hon. Member would allow to open on Sundays are the small shops, which pay the lowest wages of all. His amendment and others tabled today, which propose a distinction between small and large shops, would not protect workers but would lose them their jobs in the large stores—the very stores that pay premium wages.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, by rejecting our amendment proposing double-time payments the Government have failed to understand the link between premium pay and the voluntary principle.
Before I came to this debate, I was lobbied by workers from my local Tesco—other Members may also have been. I asked them why they had come and why they had been

working on Sundays. They came to urge me to vote in favour of the Third Reading and they all said that they worked on Sundays for the money [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Conservative Members are agreeing with me, but they should bear in mind the fact that that money is based on a double-time payment on a Sunday. The payment of double-time wages has provided a group of workers who are voluntarily available to work on Sundays.
The payment of premium wages in the larger stores has produced the demand and the basis for enhanced pay for workers in smaller shops. We remain convinced of the justice of making double-time payments to those who work voluntarily on Sundays.
As I said in Committee, double-time payments are a long-established practice, which recognises the contribution of those who work anti-social hours. Despite Government measures, millions of workers who are legally working anti-social hours are receiving double-time payments. They include local authority and hospital workers and, indeed, civil servants.
Notwithstanding our case for double-time payments, we have tabled amendment No. 19 in a spirit of co-operation and in an attempt to meet some of the Minister's earlier criticisms and the reservations of some supporters of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. The amendment calls for enhanced pay for Sunday working, but we would not have been able to table it in the absence of developments outside the House. Those developments are the direct result of our previous debates and the Government's rejection of our earlier amendments.
Two days after the debate on employment protection in a Committee of the whole House, USDAW and the major companies participating in the Shopping Hours Reform Council campaign entered into a voluntary agreement on premium pay. That agreement would not have been reached but for the pressure for double-time payments that was exerted in the House. Before speaking about the agreement, I should like to tell the House about a survey of about 3,000 stores belonging to the SHRC member companies.
Some 51 per cent. of the workers in the survey currently receive double-time pay; 18 per cent. receive on average 1·9 times the basic pay; and 27 per cent. receive rates varying between time and a half and 1·9 per cent. It is thus possible to say that 96 per cent. of those surveyed received between time and a half and 2·3 times basic pay. They all receive additional payments for working on Sundays and there can be little doubt that they are willing to work for that reason.
If the arrangements in the Bill to enable voluntary workers to say no to working on Sunday are to have real force, the employers will have to continue to pay premium wages. That is the way to get people to volunteer to work. We are not fooled by commercial interests: we know full well the motivation of the companies involved. They are interested in their market share and in profit margins. Equally, no one can deny that when enhanced pay is on offer workers are willing and anxious to work on Sundays.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that when the system, if it is approved by the House, is up and running, many workers will be obliged to take Monday off in lieu of Sunday?

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Lady's point is not pertinent to the case that I am making.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend says that she understands the difficulties faced by workers in well-organised, large capitalist organisations. She spoke about the agreements reached by USDAW and the other unions with the large multiples for Sunday premium payments. Does she agree that those payments depend on trading conditions and that if those conditions worsen the payments will go out cf the window?

Ms Ruddock: When I said that I was in no way fooled by the commercial interests and the motivation of companies, I said it advisedly. It is quite clear from all my contacts with companies and those who work voluntarily on Sundays that the workers consider that by working on Sundays they have a stake in those large companies. That is why we shall support the position taken by USDAW.
The common practices that have been embodied in the voluntary agreements are important and the House should note them.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I am concerned that the voluntary agreernents should stick and, for that reason, I read them into the record tonight. The Argyll group pays double time; ASDA pays double time for full-timers and time and a half for part-timers; Boots pays between time and a half and double time; Dixons pays between 1.7 and 2.3 time, depending on

age and grade; Kingfisher pays between time and a half and double time, depending on grade; Sainsbury pays an average of 1.9 time; Tesco pays double time and W. H. Smith pays an average of time and a half.
I believe that those companies, having made voluntary agreements with workers who work on Sunday, must stick to those agreements. If the Bill becomes law, we shall be watching carefully, as will their representatives in the trade unions, to see that they honour their promises.
Having said that, I come to the Dispatch Box, as I did on previous occasions, to say that voluntary agreements are no substitute for the statutory agreements that we have sought. We are quite clear that, although we appreciate those agreements having been made and believe that they were made as a result of Opposition pressure for better worker conditions on Sundays, we would once again ask the House, and all those Conservative Members who have said that they are concerned about workers' rights, to support the amendments to ensure that the amount of time that people work on Sundays is limited to eight hours, that there is enhanced payment for those workers and that those payments, which are the rationale for their working, are the means by which we can ensure that people who work on Sunday do so voluntarily. I commend the amendments to the House and urge the Minister to reconsider.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: This debate follows closely those that we had two weeks ago in Committee. I shall therefore try to be brief, though there are some differences worth remarking.
I am flattered that the hon. Lady was so obviously listening to what I said previously. Amendment No. 15, on the period of notice, seeks to encapsulate in statutory form what she took my meaning to be. She was right up to a point. I certainly did argue that no doubt some larger shops with larger staff could accommodate a shorter period of notice than many smaller shops with fewer staff. I am glad that Opposition Members recognise that there is such a distinction. I feel rather churlish that I cannot accept the revised proposal, much more realistic though it is.
Some large shops would find that one month would cause genuine and unreasonable difficulty, especially those that require skilled and knowledgeable staff, such as garden centres and electrical shops. Many reputable traders, such as John Lewis, Burton, Unwins and Coolings nurseries, have explained that three months—not one month—could present their businesses with substantial problems.
They obviously share some of the expectations that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—who, sadly, is not in his place—expressed in Committee when he said from his very different perspective:
There are many valid and important reasons
for an employee to want to opt out, including joining
a sports team or a social club, which has its main event on a Sunday."—[Official Report, 9 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 329.]
People may well want to drop Sunday working for such reasons, but they are considerably less likely to change their job altogether. There are many reasons, as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill explained, why people might want to opt out of Sunday working and we can sympathise with them, but we should also consider the interests of the employer.
The employee is getting a new, long-lasting, special right to opt out. The employer also needs consideration. He has his business to run and he needs sufficient notice from employees opting out to do so properly. The law ought to provide the minimum manageable for reasonably efficient employers, in all their difference sizes, varieties and circumstances. Better placed employers—the hon. Lady mentioned some—will be able to improve on three months. I am glad that many leading members of the SHRC guaranteed less than three months—one month, in many cases. Other employers are not so well placed. I am sure that they will seek to do better, when they can, for valued employees who give good service or in emergencies. In the latter case, I hope that all employers will improve on the one month's notice that the Opposition would write into the Bill. In a real emergency, one month can be far too long. For statutes, I remain convinced that the right length of notice should remain three months. I hope that the House will agree.
10.45 pm
We also gave the content of amendment No. 18 a thorough airing in Committee and I shall not weary the House by rehearsing that debate. I see no virtue in putting a limit on the hours of Sunday shop work when, rightly, it does not apply to weekdays or in other areas of business and commerce. I can imagine some employees working in

large shops regretting that opening and earning hours will be as short as they will. Equally, I accept that some employees in small shops would find the eight-hour limit that the hon. Lady proposes longer than they would ideally like.
Whether or not to work on Sunday in a particular job, for a particular length of time, should be the choice of the worker. I see no justification for suddenly obliging a small shop such as a newsagent, which has for years legitimately opened from 8 am until 5 pm on Sunday, to shut at 4 pm to the annoyance of his customers, or to employ another worker for the extra hour. The Opposition have not begun to make their case for amendment No. 18, and I hope that the House will reject it.
When we discussed pay a fortnight ago, the issue was double pay—pure and simple, and a real and full-blooded one. Amendment No. 19 takes the form of an anaemic shadow called enhanced pay. It is not a weighty amendment, because its terms could be met if the employer paid a premium of no more than 1p an hour for Sunday work.
Amendment No. 61 is half full-blooded, with double time to be paid by large shops, and time and a half by small shops. I am grateful to the Opposition for half listening to me. Of course it would be easier for profitable large shops to pay higher wages than for many small shops, but that is not an inviolable rule to be written into the statute. Some large shops are not highly profitable. Garden centres, for example, often operate on small margins, while some small shops are extremely profitable.
It is hard on a shop of 3,050 sq ft to have to shut after six hours on Sunday when its rival of only 2,900 sq ft can remain open, and it would be most unfair to add an obligation on the larger shop to pay double time when its competitor can satisfy the law with time and a half. Employers and employees must, in their joint long-term interests, be free to make their own arrangements on wages —taking into account the circumstances of the particular business, requirements for flexibility and different incentives for different parts of the day, different days of the week and different parts of the country.
I am glad that many large profitable shops are committed to paying premium rates, but I cannot advise the House other than to vote against the amendments, which would have the effect of driving some shops out of business or preventing them from opening on Sunday if they wanted to do so. Either way, there would be fewer jobs. Wage-fixing would prove the enemy of employment while reducing the range and quality of retail services available to the public.

Mr. Ray Powell: Rarely can I say that I share the Minister's opinions, particularly in respect of amendment No. 19. There might have been a printing error, because my name is among those associated with that amendment. I would not have supported it, and I share the Minister's view that it gives nothing by way of an enhanced payment to persons working on Sunday.
I am speaking to amendment No. 61 on the basis that it is one of the most important amendments to be considered by the House today. It would introduce a statutory right —I emphasise statutory—for double-time payments for shopworkers employed on Sundays in shops of more than 3,000 sq ft, and a half payment for shopworkers employed in smaller shops. Having laid out the main arguments in


support of the amendment, I shall explain why I have drawn the distinction between the rate that is being set for shopworkers in large and small shops.
Although in principle I and my hon. Friends would argue that all shopworkers should be remunerated alike on Sundays, we must take into account the enormous financial pressures that are imposed on small shops. Evidence supplied to us by Outlets Providing for Everyday Needs —OPEN—and by an independent research company reveals that many small businesses already face the threat of closure as a result of the growing trend towards out-of-town shopping centres. The introduction of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which will remove all restrictions on weekday trading hours, poses another major threat to small shops. Fears have been expressed by small shops that the introduction of double-time premiums on Sundays will be the last straw for traders and will force them out of business.
In response to the representations that we have received, I have introduced in the amendment a concession to small business in the form of time and a half payment as opposed to double-time. The amendment therefore represents a fair compromise for the retail sector.
I now wish to present the main reasons why I am urging hon. Members today to vote in support of the amendment. Throughout the Bill's progress—indeed, before it was even published—hon. Members on both sides of the House asserted that enforceable and effective protection for shopworkers' rights must involve a central element in any reform of trading law. Hon. Members looking al. the Sunday Trading Bill may on first reading be impressed by the eight pages of employment protection provisions that are included in it. However, I warn hon. Members that, although those provisions appear principled, in reality they will offer extremely limited protection for shopworkers. The only way that the House can guarantee that all work done in shops on Sunday is voluntary is by supporting the amendment and introducing statutory premiums for Sunday work. I stress the importance of specifying a particular rate for shopworkers.
Hon. Members will be aware of an amendment that was tabled by some of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, with my name attached, that seeks to introduce the right of shopworkers to be paid more on Sundays than they are throughout the week. With respect, that amendment is not worth the paper that it is written on. If passed, it would mean that shopworkers would be entitled to a penny, or even half a penny, extra for working on Sundays. Industrial tribunals would not have the jurisdiction to set a fair wage for shopworkers on Sunday. The livelihood of shopworkers would rather be solely dependent on their employers' generosity. If the House wishes to honour the rights of shopworkers and protect them from exploitation on Sundays, it is critical that hon. Members support the amendment.
Hon. Members will no doubt be aware of the recent agreement made between USDAW—my union—and the SHRC companies which supposedly included premium rate pay for shopworkers on Sunday. I am astounded that a union with the experience of USDAW could be conned into believing that the agreement will be lasting and will offer anything to their members for the future. The agreement states that the stores would deviate only if there

were a significant change in the circumstances in which retail work was rewarded. The House and USDAW must open their eyes today to the reality that no shopowner or retail business will pay premiums once Sunday becomes deregulated.
I urge hon. Members to support the amendment, to ensure that both retail workers and those employed in other parts of the labour market are in future guaranteed a decent standard of living that will provide for the needs of their families, including children.
I know that hon. Members wish to proceed to a vote so that we can debate Third Reading and people can go home to their beds—if, that is, they are not stopped from doing so by candle-holding demonstrators outside. However, I want to refer to the whole issue of worker protection, including voluntary working and double-time payments on Sundays.
We could reasonably have a longer debate on employment protection, but we had a lengthy debate on that subject when we discussed new clause 4, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase)—you were in the Chair then, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so there is no need to reiterate much of what was said then.
I received a letter from William Connor, deputy general secretary of my union, USDAW, dated 10 September 1993. The union had supported the Keep Sunday Special campaign since 1986. Five months ago, it decided to send all hon. Members—but, in particular, sponsored Members— a letter about Sunday trading, providing an update on recent developments. It gave support, financial and otherwise, to my private Member's Bill—a two-year effort— to ensure that the Keep Sunday Special proposals were upheld in the House.
The letter describes my Bill as "the Powell Bill". It says:
The Union fully supported the Powell Bill … that … contained the critical elements of worker protection, namely, voluntary working and double-time payments for all Sunday working. This position was endorsed by the 1993 Annual Delegate Meeting
which took place in May. To my knowledge, no other annual meeting of members has taken place, and no reversal of that opinion has ever been expressed. Only the executive committee of USDAW adopted a different policy. I mention the letter because the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has referred to USDAW on numerous occasions. If that decision had been reversed, we might not now be discussing what is virtually a Government Bill—supported by a number of Opposition Members, if by no one else. That needs to be investigated. Had it not been for the decision, more support would undoubtedly have been given to the Keep Sunday Special proposals, and we would have been debating them tonight.
The deputy general secretary goes on:
On the 19th May 1993, at the meeting of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, I moved the following Emergency Motion, which was carried unanimously: Shop Hours Legislation and Workers' Protection.
This NEC welcomes the further progress of Ray Powell's Shops (Amendment) Bill in the House of Commons on Friday, 14th May, when two of the Government's proposed options on total and partial deregulation were voted upon and decisively rejected by a large majority.
 It congratulates Ray Powell and those Labour MPs who have maintained a principled and consistent stand on sensible reform of shop hours legislation, including the critical elements of worker protection.


Given the level of exploitation amongst part-time workers, as graphically portrayed in last Monday's BBC Panorama programme, it believes that the worker protection measures of voluntary working and double-time payment for Sunday working embodied in the Powell Bill, which maintained cross Party support through all the Committee Stages, are the minimum safeguards required to protect shopworkers.
That document was sent to me by the deputy general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers in September of last year, and was the policy of the Labour party until recent weeks, as I see it.
When we saw extracts in the Sunday Shopper of a pact that has been made, in an article which was headed:
Handshake seals new Sunday pact
which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) mentioned earlier, the article did not tell us the small print that is recorded. I have sent a copy to all hon. Members so that they can read the small print. The small print is not about double time and not about protection for workers. Let me read what the small print says. It says that they—the employers—
reaffirm their statement of September 17th 1993 that they will continue to pay current premium rates of pay to Sunday employees. They will only deviate from this if there is a significant change in the circumstances in which retail work is rewarded and only after appropriate consultation. The employers recognise that a premium will be required to attract sufficient high quality employees for Sunday work.
I take it, therefore, that anyone who was a party to that agreement will clearly understand that if they find that trading and profitability are not what they expect, the employers will do the same as they threatened to do with USDAW: they will rip up those papers and do away with 55,000 of the union membership. It is a blatant falsehood to try to present to the House the claim that they have made a pact and agreement that has protected 55,000 shopworkers.
Let us bear in mind also that we are not only speaking about 55,000 shopworkers in Tesco, which is protected by USDAW; we are speaking about 2¼ million shopworkers, most of whom are not protected by any union.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend accept that by his principled and consistent stand he has gained the respect of both sides of the House? His consistency stands in marked contrast to the behaviour of those people who have stood on their heads on that issue.

Mr. Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment and I will ensure that he is paired next week.
I am convinced that I have given the House sufficient to think about—including the Minister. If Opposition Front Bench Members and the Labour party are not prepared to accept the Bill that the Government have presented to the House, without the qualified protection that we demanded in Committee, on Second Reading and in the special pleading on employment protection, I ask the House to support amendment 61.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am pleased to support amendment No. 61, to which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred. No one has worked harder than he to protect those who will suffer if the Bill is not amended again. I pay tribute to all that he has done before and during our consideration of the Bill. I shall say something in a moment about those who should have taken a little more notice of what he was saying.
Amendment No. 61 is far preferable to what I call the "ha'penny" amendment tabled by members of the Labour Front Bench, which would achieve premium pay at the minimal level of a ha'penny an hour. It is designed to secure double time in large shops and time and a half in smaller shops, and to do so on a basis that can survive, as opposed to the basis of the pact or agreement, which does not have that capacity.
Let us be clear that we are not seeking protection only for shopworkers, many of whom do not belong to a trade union; the amendment would also be a disincentive to trade on Sundays. The intention is that those who are wondering whether to embark on Sunday trading should consider the fact that there is not sufficient trade to make it a profitable exercise overall and should therefore be deterred.
If they embark on Sunday trading, they will almost certainly damage small shops in their area, and might even damage themselves. They might as well face the facts from the beginning and be presented with a financial disincentive at the outset. That is one of the purposes of the amendment.
When the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said that she was not fooled by commercial interests, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. She and some of her colleagues did not support the Conservative Members who worked with some of us to try to ensure that shops did not open. By refusing to be around at the given moment, she created a situation in which she could not win on the vital employment protection amendments, but was bound to lose.

Ms Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman help me and the House by telling us whether he voted in favour of the double time amendment that I moved on behalf of the Labour Front Bench in Committee of the whole House?

Mr. Beith: Yes, I did, as far as I can recall.

Ms Ruddock: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's name does not appear in the record.

Mr. Beith: In that case, I was not present—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The House is getting restless, and I am having great difficulty in hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. If the House settles down, we can get on with the business.

Mr. Beith: I clearly was not present.
The essential point is that if all those who are concerned about people working on Sundays had been on the same Lobby on the crucial issue of whether shops open at all on Sundays, there would have been no doubt about the result, and the problem that we face now would not have been so acute. Amendment No. 61 may gain some support from Conservative Members—I hope it does—but it is not a gamble that the hon. Lady and her colleagues should have been prepared to take.
As the hon. Member for Deptford mentioned individual votes, she may care to explain to me later why the leader of her party voted against keeping shops closed on Christmas day and Easter day, which I found extraordinary.
We are debating Government amendment No. 35, but grouped with it are two other amendments: one, which stands in the name of the hon. Lady and her colleagues,


affords no significant protection; the other, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore, affords significant protection. If the hon. Gentleman is able to press that amendment to a Division, I urge hon. Members of all parties who are concerned about those who will be affected by the legislation to support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 22, page 13, line 18, after 'means' insert

'subject to paragraph 10A(2) below'.— [Mr. Peter Lloyd.].

Amendment proposed: No. 19, in page 14, line 16, at end insert—

'Right to enhanced pay for Sunday work

9A. A shop worker shall be entitled to remuneration from his employer in respect of shop work undertaken on a Sunday at a rate of pay which exceeds that which he earns in the case of shop work undertaken by him for that employer during his normal working hours on a weekday or in the case of a shop worker required to work only on a Sunday, at a rate of pay which exceeds that earned by a shop worker carrying out similar shop work for that employer during his normal working hours on a weekday.'. —[Ms Ruddock.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 317.

Division No 144]
[11 09 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Adams, Mrs Irene
Coffey, Ann


Ainger, Nick
Cohen, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Connarty, Michael


Allen, Graham
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Alton, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Hilary
Corston, Ms Jean


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Cox, Tom


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Battle, John
Dafis, Cynog


Bayley, Hugh
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Darling, Alistair


Beggs, Roy
Davidson, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dixon, Don


Betts, Clive
Dobson, Frank


Blair, Tony
Donohoe, Brian H.


Blunkett, David
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradley, Keith
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Enright, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Etherington, Bill


Burden, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Byers, Stephen
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cann, Jamie
Foulkes, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fraser, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fyfe, Maria


Clapham, Michael
Galbraith, Sam


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gapes, Mike


Clelland, David
Garrett, John





George, Bruce
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gerrard, Neil
Martlew, Eric


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maxton, John


Godsiff, Roger
Meacher, Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meale, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Michael, Alun


Graham, Thomas
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Milburn, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Miller, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gunnell, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanson, David
Morley, Elliot


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Henderson, Doug
Mowlam, Marjorie


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Paul


Hoey, Kate
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, William


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Patchett, Terry


Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Keen, Alan
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Khabra, Piara S.
Rogers, Allan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rooney, Terry


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Liwyd, Elfyn
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lynne, Ms Liz
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCrea, Rev William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McLeish, Henry
Snape, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McMaster, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Speller, John


Madden, Max
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Steinberg, Gerry


Maginnis, Ken
Stevenson, George


Mahon, Alice
Stott, Roger


Mendelson, Peter
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)






Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Trimble, David
Wilson, Brian


Tyler, Paul
Winnick, David


Vaz, Keith
Wise, Audrey


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Worthington, Tony


Walley, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wright, Dr Tony


Wareing, Robert N
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Watson, Mike



Wicks, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Denis Turner and


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Mr. Jack Thompson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Aitken, Jonathan
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Amess, David
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Ancram, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baldry, Tony
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Elletson, Harold


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David


Booth, Hartley
Faber, David


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowden, Andrew
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Fishbum, Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brandreth, Gyles
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
French, Douglas


Budgen, Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butcher, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Butler, Peter
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butterfill, John
Gamier, Edward


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hague, William


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Conway, Derek
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre Forst)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Harris, David





Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Sir Roger


Hawkins, Nick
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawksley, Warren
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayes, Jerry
Moss, Malcolm


Heald, Oliver
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hendry, Charles
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Horam, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pickles, Eric


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ryder, Rt Hon


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Richard Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, Sir David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, lain


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Homchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stem, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stewart, Allan


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Major, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Sykes, John


Marland, Paul
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Thomason, Roy


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Merchant, Piers
Thumham, Peter


Mills, lain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard






Tredinnick, David
Whittingdale, John


Trend, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Viggers, Peter
Willetts, David


Walden, George
Wilshire, David


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waterson, Nigel



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Whitney, Ray

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 15, line 3, at end insert—

'Employer's duty to give explanatory statement

10A.—(1) Where a person becomes a shop worker to whom paragraph 4 above applies, his employer shall, before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which that person becomes such a shop worker, give him a written statement in the prescribed form.

(2) If—

(a) an employer fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in relation to any shop worker, and
(b) the shop worker, on giving the employer an opting-out notice, becomes an opted-out shop worker,

paragraph 6 above shall have effect, in relation to the shop worker, with the substitution for "three months" of "one month".

(3) An employer shall not be regarded as failing to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in any case where, before the end of the period referred to in that sub-paragraph, the shop worker has given him an opting-out notice.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, the prescribed form is as follows—

STATUTORY RIGHTS IN RELATION TO SUNDAY SHOP WORK

You have become employed as a shop worker and are or can be required under your contract of employment to do the Sunday work your contract provides for.

However, if you wish, you can give a notice, as described in the next paragraph, to your employer and you will then have the right not to work in or about a shop on any Sunday on which the shop is open once three months have passed from the date on which you gave the notice.

Your notice must—
be in writing;
be signed and dated by you;
say that you object to Sunday working.

For three months after you give the notice, your employer can still require you to do all the Sunday work your contract provides for. After the three month period has ended, you have the right to complain to an industrial tribunal if, because of your refusal to work on Sundays on which the shop is open, your employer—

dismisses you, or
does something else detrimental to you, for example failing to promote you.

Once you have the rights described, you can surrender them only by giving your employer a further notice, signed and dated by you, saying that you wish to work on Sunday or that you do not object to Sunday working and then agreeing with your employer to work on Sundays or on a particular Sunday."

(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend the prescribed form set out in sub-paragraph (4) above.

(6) An order under sub-paragraph (5) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'

No. 36, in page 16, line 32, after 'period' insert—
'(in this paragraph referred to as "the contractual Sunday
hours").

No. 37, in page 16, line 33, at end insert—
'(2) Where, under the contract of employment, the hours of work actually done on weekdays in any period would be taken

into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours, they shall be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.'

No. 60, in page 17, line 3, leave out from 'for' to end of line 5 and insert
'by virtue of any provision of Part IV of this Act, other than section sixty-two, is" there shall be substituted "is lawfully". '—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I call for a Division on my amendment No. 61?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment was not selected by Madam Speaker.

Mr. Powell: Could I have an explanation why?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker does not give explanations.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
For many years the Shops Act 1950 has been acknowledged as needing thoroughgoing reform. I know of no other law that generations of hon. Members have tried so hard to repeal, revise or amend with so little success. It has taken this unique Bill to give the House the chance to break the pattern. It is by providing Parliament with the opportunity—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the House settle down? It is very difficult to hear the Minister speaking.

Mr. Lloyd: It is by providing Parliament with the opportunity to choose between the major options for change that we have been able to take advantage of the belief on all sides of the House that, one way or another, Sunday must be sorted out and to begin to find our way through this complex and controversial issue.
Although the Bill is a Government Bill, we have been neutral between the options and have helped evenhandedly the various campaigning groups in the preparation of their section of the Bill. Although Sunday trading is an issue which has aroused passionate feeling, our debates have been marked largely by good humour and much good sense, and I think that all of us who have taken part in it have valued—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be keen to listen to the Minister, but it appears that many of them are not. I should be obliged if they would listen.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that we have valued the discussion, which has been so comprehensively and completely cross-party and has not followed the normal party political divide.
Although our personal views on how far the law should regulate shop opening on Sundays have varied, there has been common ground. We have all recognised that the Shops Act 1950 has outlived its time and that we need a new law which is clear, respected, enforceable and enforced. We also all agree that, whatever our view of Sunday shopping, Sunday is a special day and that if shops are to open more freely on Sunday shopworkers who make Sunday opening possible should have a continuing choice as to whether to work on Sunday.
The party difference has been marked by the imposition of normal party Whips on matters related to employment terms and conditions, but party differences should not be allowed to obscure the comprehensive and radical arrangement that the Bill makes for present and future shopworkers to withdraw from Sunday working if that is their wish. In this respect, all shopworkers will have gained a continuing right, not a once-and-for-all choice, to decide whether they are available for work on Sundays.
No matter how clear the law, it serves no purpose if it is ignored. The Standing Committee decided—in my view, rightly—to support an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to increase the maximum fine for breaches of the law to £50,000. The House is indebted to him for that initiative. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) drew our attention to the position of leaseholders who might have been required to open on a Sunday even if they did not wish to do so because their lease required them to trade during normal business hours. I am grateful to her and for the opportunity to bring forward an amendment which I believe goes to the heart of her own and others' genuine concern on the issue.
Likewise, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who raised the fears which we all understand of people living near large shops whose Sunday mornings could be disturbed by pre-breakfast deliveries. We have been able earlier this evening to give local authorities the muscle to ban all such deliveries from taking place before 9 am.
I am grateful to all those who have worked constructively in Committtee and on the Floor of the House to improve the Bill, and I am grateful to the campaign groups, successful and unsuccessful, who worked long hours with my officials to refine and clarify their options. I wish particularly to mention the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), with whom I generally disagree, but whose tenacity and ingenuity in his cause I recognise and respect. I also mention with deepest respect my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), with whom I am more regularly in agreement on other issues. He has taken a close, continuous and highly principled part in our deliberations on the Bill wherever possible.
All those efforts have produced a Bill that is not exactly what any of us would ideally want. All our experience shows that, on the subject of Sunday trading, differences within and between parties and in the country at large are too great for that to be possible. But we now have a Bill that is clear and enforceable and will commend itself to the majority of people in the country.

Dr. Wright: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not give way.
People want the muddle of Sunday trading to be sorted out after years of failed attempts, and I do not believe that they will readily forgive us if we miss the hard-won opportunity to do so. I hope that the House will give the Bill a resounding Third Reading.

Ms Ruddock: Like the Minister, I intend to be brief and not to detain the House for long.
The Bill has been difficult and controversial, not least because of the strong feelings held on both sides of the House, particularly in the Labour party. The Labour Front Bench team have been rigorously neutral on the options that have come before the House. We said from the outset that Labour Members would be free to choose and best represent their constituents as they saw fit. Our task was to unite our party around the issue of employment protection and, as the Minister acknowledged, it is on that issue that the House has been divided.
Now that a decision has been taken on the options, with a limitation on large shops opening and liberalisation for small shops, if the Bill is given a Third Reading we shall expect those provisions to be rigorously enforced. [Interruption.] We can assure all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who interrupts from a sedentary position, that we shall be resolute in trying to ensure that the workers and our constituents are protected, and that the law is properly enforced.
We sought throughout to improve on the employment protection conditions. We never said that it was necessary to have double-time payments, but we believed that it was vital to strive for those payments because they were the conditions under which workers were most likely to volunteer for Sunday working. We said that essential to any liberalisation in the Sunday trading laws was the right of existing workers to opt out of Sunday working and the right of future workers to say that they would not work on a Sunday. That provision is contained in the Bill.
We wanted further to clarify that workers thus provided for could opt in and out more than once, and the Government accepted that request. We believed that it was necessary for workers to be absolutely clear about the rights that they would acquire under the Bill. Again, the Government tabled an amendment to meet our request. As the Minister acknowledged, we sought to deal both with the difficult issue of disturbance from deliveries and to protect leaseholders from being forced to open on a Sunday. Once again, our requests were met.
I thank the Minister for the way in which he has worked to meet our requests and for the courteous way in which he personally has dealt with my requests at meetings with him. We have striven for more, however, and we shall remain at odds with the Minister over that.
I join the Minister in thanking members of the Committee for the way in which they have worked and the speedy progress that we were able to make. I join him also in thanking the campaign groups, all of whom I dealt with and liaised with over a considerable period and with whom there were courteous exchanges.
It remains only for me to assure the House that, while we have pursued the question of employment protection on party political lines, at this point on Third Reading Opposition Members are free to vote as they choose.

Mr. Alton: I join the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) in thanking the Minister of State who, throughout the Committee proceedings and again tonight, has been a model of how any Minister should deal with Opposition spokesmen during proceedings on a Bill.


He has been courteous and, despite the fact that we have disagreed on many parts of the Bill and shall continue to do so, I thank him warmly for the way in which he has dealt with points that Members have made.
My reservations about the Bill, which I expressed when the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) introduced his excellent private Member's Bill last year, have remained. As we have now reached Third Reading, I remain more concerned than ever about the nature of this legislation.
For nearly 1,000 years, this country has had laws to regulate trading on Sundays. For the first time, we are to be without a regulatory framework. Before giving the Bill a Third Reading, the House should seriously consider the implications for family and community life. At a time when one in three families is collapsing and up to a million elderly people do not see a friend, relative or neighbour during the course of an average week, it should be clear to us that what is missing in today's society is time for people to spend with one another. In the absence of a traditional Sunday, people will not have time to spend with their families and visit elderly people or their children.
We are putting an additional commercial and materialistic pressure on life. Our country is already sufficiently devoid of spiritual value and we should think carefully before giving the Bill a Third Reading as it will further suppress the spiritual nature of life in favour of materialism and consumerism.
My other reason for urging hon. Members not to give the Bill a Third Reading revolves around the issue of employment protection. Labour Members can pride themselves that, throughout this century, they have Fought for the rights of ordinary working people. They must share my concern that, without proper protection for workers, double-time payments or any of the protections that we might properly expect for ordinary people, many hon. Members have nevertheless voted for legislation which, even before the minor amendment made earlier, may even require people to work on Christmas day and Easter day.
What will happen to the 2.2 million retail workers, most of whom have no trade union protection—only some 300,000 or 400,000 of them belong to trade unions—as a result of the Bill? They will be exploited and will not have time to spend with their families, all in the name of so-called "choice." We should learn that choice should not become God.
Whatever the vote this evening, the fight will not be over but will be resumed in the House of Lords. I hope that the Bishops' Bench will give the country a lead and that, when the Lords' amendments come here, the House will reject the Bill if it fails to do so on Third Reading today.

Mr. Cryer: First, a number of hon. Members will oppose the Bill because they have a religious point of view. That is important, but it is not why I oppose it. I oppose the Bill because Sunday has been gained, for whatever reason, as a day of respite both for workers and for those who do not work. It is clear from the amendments proposed today, which sought to protect those who live near big supermarkets, that the pollution of noise and work will affect not only people who work on Sundays. If we want a reasonably though not entirely quiet Sunday, the Bill must be defeated on Third Reading.
Secondly, it is clear that the protection that the labour Front Bench sought for workers has not been achieved. The

requirement for doube-time payments has gone. Workers will be given the alternative of a fairly complicated formula and will have to resort to industrial tribunals.
In today's society, where work is short, workers will be frightened to stand up to management and there will be hundreds and thousands of dismissal cases if the Bill is enacted. There is no provision either in employment protection legislation or in the Bill for reinstatement and the compensation for unfair dismissal is paltry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has shown principled determination, as have many Opposition Members, although not, I regret to say, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and women.
On those two grounds, the Labour party should oppose this legislation. It does not support the workers or decent. quiet Sundays and I hope that enough hon. Members from both sides of the House will vote against the Bill to defeat it.

Mr. Ray Powell: I shall be brief as I know that hon. Members want to vote. I must thank those people who helped me with my private Member's Bill. I was fortunate —if one can call it that—to be drawn third in the ballot immediately after the last general election.
I must warn hon. Members not to get too excited if they are among the first 10 names to be drawn. They might think that they will be able to introduce a Bill that will be enacted, but they could spend the next 12 months working on it and find only frustration. If one is among the first 10, the Fees Office will send a cheque for £200 to help with legal fees and advice. If a private Member's Bill does not have the blessing or support of the Government, the hon. Member will have to pay for all the research and even, on occasions, for spare pens and envelopes and will receive little support.
When I introduced my Bill the Government decided to set up a shops unit, made up of civil servants who were very helpful. The Clerks of the House and their assistants were also very helpful, as were you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other occupants of the Chair —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very enjoyable, but the hon. Gentleman should refer to the Third Reading.

Mr. Powell: Members on both sides of the House who supported the Keep Sunday Special campaign and its option on Second Reading also gave me great support. The Committee was very cordial—we did not take long over debates or make the sort of lengthy speeches that we have heard tonight from some hon. Members. The staff of the Keep Sunday Special campaign should receive special recognition for their consideration and their work.
I must remind the House that hon. Members who devoted their time to trying get a Bill on the statute book and to alter the Shops Act 1950 did so primarily because we believe that we must keep Sunday as a special day. There was no ulterior motive, no cash incentive, just a belief that we should leave to our grandchildren and their grandchildren what we have enjoyed in our lifetime. If the Bill's provisions reach the statute book, this country will be deprived of that which is enjoyed by 300 million people in Europe. I repeat the advice of some of my hon. Friends —that hon. Members should vote against Third Reading and tell the Government that we do not want the Bill.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Earlier in our proceedings the Minister on the Treasury Bench was the Secretary of State for National Heritage. It is rather interesting that he is here to see the demise of a great English heritage, the quiet Sabbath, the Sunday well spent.
As a member of a minority party in the House, I am happy to defend the Sabbath and the rights of workers. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) thought that we should not take part in the debate. I am glad that one hopeful measure was passed and that Easter day, the day of Resurrection, may yet herald hope for the nation.
As some hon. Members have said, those who go to church will continue to do so, and I pray to God that we shall not rely too much, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) suggested, on the leadership of the Bench of Bishops to do much for the nation. We certainly cannot say tonight that the Anglican Church is the Tory party at prayer if that party continues to destroy some of the nation's heritage. I agree with those who say that we should go through the No Lobby rather than give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading.

Rev. William McCrea: I am another representative of a minority party in the House and I say without apology that my party will take its stand for the Lord's day. We believe that this country would be blessed if we took such a stand. Moving away from that and giving the Bill a Third Reading would be a retrograde step and could not bring the blessing of Almighty God upon this nation, as was sought in days that are past. Some hon. Members can be rightly proud of holding to that principle, even though they were frowned upon by other hon. Members for so doing. It was even suggested that some hon. Members had no right to speak in the debate, although we all have equal voting rights on this important legislation.
I say especially to Opposition Front-Bench speakers that some people will live to regret the day they put their hand to such legislation. Many Opposition Front-Bench speakers joined with Ministers in nodding approval during our proceedings. They say that they are interested in workers' rights, but that will prove to be false because they built on a false and rotten premise. Front-Bench speakers will hang their heads in shame when it is proved that workers' rights have not been protected.
One of the amendments suggested handing to workers a penny piece instead of genuine rights. I speak on behalf of my colleagues when I say that I shall vote against Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 218.

Division No. 145]
[11.48 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkins, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allen, Graham
Austin-Walker, John


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Barron, Kevin


Ashby, David
Bates, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Batiste, Spencer





Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Betts, Clive
French, Douglas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fry, Sir Peter


Blair, Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bowden, Andrew
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Boyes, Roland
Gamier, Edward


Brandreth, Gyles
Gerrard, Neil


Brazier, Julian
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Gunnell, John


Bums, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harvey, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coffey, Ann
Home Robertson, John


Colvin, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cran, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunter, Andrew


Darling, Alistair
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hutton, John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Ingram, Adam


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dowd, Jim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan-Smith, lain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Kirkwood, Archy


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fisher, Mark
Leigh, Edward


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leighton, Ron


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lidington, David






Lightbown, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sackville, Tom


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sedgemore, Brian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, David (Dover)


MacKay, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Maclean, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Sims, Roger


Madel, Sir David
Soames, Nicholas


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soley, Clive


Malone, Gerald
Speed, Sir Keith


Mandelson, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Spring, Richard


Marlow, Tony
Sproat, lain


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin (Homchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stern, Michael


Milburn, Alan
Stewart, Allan


Miller, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thomason, Roy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Norris, Steve
Trend, Michael


O'Hara, Edward
Twinn, Dr Ian


O'Neill, Martin
Tyler, Paul


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Paice, James
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Pope, Greg
Watts, John


Porter, Barry (Wirrat S)
Wells, Bowen


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Whitney, Ray


Rathbone, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Rendel, David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Richards, Rod
Wilshire, David


Riddick, Graham
Wilson, Brian


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Worthington, Tony


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Dame Angela Rumbold and


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. John Marshall.


Ruddock, Joan





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Battle, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bayley, Hugh


Ainger, Nick
Beggs, Roy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bell, Stuart


Alton, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Amess, David
Bennett, Andrew F.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benton, Joe


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Berry, Dr. Roger


Barnes, Harry
Blunkett, David





Boateng, Paul
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hoyle, Doug


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Butterfill, John
Illsey, Eric


Byers, Stephen
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Caborn, Richard
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Callaghan, Jim
Jessel, Toby


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Churchill, Mr
Jowell, Tessa


Clapham, Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clelland, David
Keen, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corbett, Robin
Khabra, Piara S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corston, Ms Jean
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cousins, Jim
Knapman, Roger


Cox, Tom
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Livingstone, Ken


Dafis, Cynog
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tam
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davidson, Ian
Lord, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Luff, Peter


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McAllion, John


Day, Stephen
McAvoy, Thomas


Denham, John
McCrea, Rev William


Dixon, Don
Macdonald, Calum


Dobson, Frank
McFall, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
McLeish, Henry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maclennan, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McMaster, Gordon


Dykes, Hugh
McWilliam, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Maginnis, Ken


Enright, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Etherington, Bill
Marek, Dr John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Michael, Alun


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Forman, Nigel
Moate, Sir Roger


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliot


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Galloway, George
Mudie, George


Gapes, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, John
Murphy, Paul


George, Bruce
Neubert, Sir Michael


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Godsiff, Roger
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gordon, Mildred
Olner, William


Graham, Thomas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Patchett, Terry


Grocott, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Hain, Peter
Pickthall, Colin


Hall, Mike
Pike, Peter L.


Hanson, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Prescott, John


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Heppell, John
Purchase, Ken


Hinchliffe, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoey, Kate
Raynsford, Nick


Hood, Jimmy
Reid, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robathan, Andrew






Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Trimble, David


Rooney, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Walley, Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Simpson, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Skeel, Sir Trevor
Watson, Mike


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Audrey


Spellar, John
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wray, Jimmy


Spink, Dr Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Stevenson, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Straw, Jack



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Jack Thompson.

Question according agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Neil Latimer (Imprisonment)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The case of Neil Latimer, who was convicted with three others of the murder of Adrian Carroll in Armagh on 8 November 1983, is complex and disturbing. In the short time available to me, I hope to show that the continued imprisonment of Mr. Latimer, who has served just over 10 years of a life sentence for that murder, is unsafe and unjust. The importance of the issue is well illustrated by the attendance tonight, and the fact that the Secretary of State is on the Front Bench to reply. I am grateful to all.
On the day of the murder, Neil Latimer was a member of a 13-man patrol from the Ulster Defence Regiment. Those convicted, now known as the UDR Four, have always maintained their innocence; the other nine members of the patrol have corroborated that. Moreover, the evidence of every witness called by the Crown, except for witness A, detracted from the prosecution case.
Among those whose evidence was disregarded was the principal of the local further education college, a site engineer and a contractor engaged in road works in the area, a gardener who saw a car leave the scene at speed, a police constable on patrol in the street along which Neil allegedly made his escape, a neighbour of Mr. Carroll's, a workmate who walked a few yards behind Mr. Carroll on his way home, and Elaine Faulkner, who saw the killer.
Yet the testimony of the alleged eye witness—witness A—was given greatest credence. Three of the UDR Four were freed almost two years ago as a result of an appeal, but Neil Latimer's appeal was dismissed, mainly on the ground that he alone had been identified by witness A.
It was proved during the appeal that 39 pages of interview notes and alleged confessions had been rewritten by the police. On that basis, Messrs. Allen, Bell and Hegan were released, and a number of police officers are facing charges relating to tampering with evidence. I cannot elaborate on that matter as it is sub judice, but 16 of those 39 pages had related to Neil Latimer.
When Mr. Carroll was murdered, no one saw the shooting, but Elaine Faulkner—now Elaine Dunn—an office worker out to post letters, gave evidence that, about 50 yards from the scene of the shooting, she encountered a man who brushed past her, then walked ahead of her for a few yards, before taking a gun from his pocket and going into the entry where Mr. Carroll was murdered. A few seconds later, Miss Faulkner heard shots.
She went almost immediately to the police to report what she had seen and give a detailed description of the person she had seen go into the entry, including what he was wearing. She indicated that he was as small as or smaller than her own 5 ft 4 in. Later, in court, Miss Faulkner gave evidence that the gunman was not Neil Latimer, whom she knew well and who is about 5 ft 10 in tall. As a result of Miss Faulkner's description, the police next day issued an appeal for information, giving details of the gunman and what he was wearing. The case was reported widely, although not always accurately; the RUC continued to investigate.
Then, two weeks after the incident, a new witness alleged—not to the police, but to two local priests—that she had seen a man, dressed in distinctive clothing similar


to that worn by the gunman, getting into a UDR. Land Rover a few minutes before the shooting. She identified the man as Mr. Latimer. The new witness was witness A. On 29 November 1983, Neil Latimer was arrested on the basis of the statement that witness A had given to the priests. As a result of questioning by the police, he made a number of statements over the next few days.
Significantly, however, the actual confession that was ultimately used against Latimer in court was not made until after the police had, for the first time, formally interviewed witness A on 2 December. It is obvious from the content of the various statements that he made that Mr. Latimer was little more than putty in the hands of his interrogators, and concurred with almost everything that was suggested to him.
Throughout the trial, witness A was found by counsel for the defence to be devious and inaccurate; but, as she was an alleged eye witness, it was important for her testimony not to be discounted. The trial judge, Lord Justice Kelly, stated:
'The evidence of Mrs. 'A' is of the greatest importance to the Crown case against Latimer".
That was despite his admission in the summing-up of the evidence that
Mrs 'A' did reveal inconsistencies in her evidence, mistakes, some faulty recollections, some contradictions, some inconsistencies between her evidence in court and what she said in her statements to Fr. Murray and to the Police. Many of these were labelled 'lies' by defence counsel. I need not set them out exhaustively. Here are some she undoubtedly hedged about admitting a conviction for larceny of a pound of butter in 1967, she was wrong as to when she came forward for the first time to Fr. Murray and to the Police, not 6 or 7 days and 10 days, but 14 days and 24 days respectively. She did not make her statement to Fr. Murray in the Parochial House, but in her own home. She did try more than once to telephone him. She was quite wrong in denying that she sought directory enquiries as to Fr. Faul's telephone number. The BBC 9.00 pm news contained no mention of the Carroll murder that evening and certainly not a description of the gunman or anyone running … She was confused as to how many soldiers in Lonsdale Street were about, or got into the Landrovers. She only assumed but did not see Latimer and the others getting into the back of the Landrover. She showed contradiction as to whether the Landrovers at the time had headlights on. She said they had back doors, but admitted that she could not see the back. She described the garment worn by Latimer as a dark brown anorak … Mrs. 'A' said the events occurred in Lonsdale Street in daylight, fairly bright, clearly visible, although the lights of the College were on and the headlights of the Landrover in one of her accounts were on …I have noted all the discrepancies, mistakes, inconsistencies referred to as 'lies' by the defence. I must say that these are all peripheral".
It should be noted that the Land Rovers did not have back doors, and that the coat worn by the killer was a light blue duffel coat, but had been incorrectly reported in a local newspaper as having been a brown anorak. It is little wonder that Lord Justice Kelly pondered the matter when he asked:
Why should Mrs. 'A' invent her story? I have asked myself this many times during the course of this trial".
He responded to his own question in saying:
I have interposed it to some defence counsel during their eloquent closing speeches. I have not found any reasonable answer other than that she is not inventing it, and that her story is true.
There the matter might have rested if my secretary had not, on 31 July 1990, received a telephone call from someone who stated that he was Roman Catholic but knew that the UDR Four were innocent. He said he was

astonished that witness A, who he alleged was known for her exaggeration and lies, had been accepted as a credible witness.
I investigated and was able to confirm that that was true. A few months later, I received, from an anonymous source, a copy of that lady's medical notes, which I asked a well-known and well-respected consultant psychotherapist, Dr. John Alderdice, who is also the leader of the Alliance party in Northern Ireland, to evaluate.
Dr. Alderdice's opinion is contained in the recent publication, "Witness for the Prosecution", which, with other booklets pertaining to the case, is in the Library. He confirmed that witness A had been a patient in St. Luke's mental hospital in 1964, and that she was recorded as imagining men running around her house with guns, trying to kill her. Let us remember that there was no terrorism or common usage of guns in Northern Ireland in 1964, or for long afterwards.
Dr. Alderdice states:
she was described as being hallucinated and persecuted, and was felt by the admitting doctor to be a danger to herself and to her children".
Later he records that Dr. McCallum, who was a doctor in the hospital,
notes that she had had an 'unstable upbringing' and expressed the view that 'this must have an effect on her future stability'.
Dr. McCullum's assessment was:
Witness A was so given to 'fantasy' when telling her side of the story that it was hard to sort out the true story".
The lady's husband, when interviewed, told how he had, for the first five years of their marriage,
defended her in what turned out to be lies".
He discounts most of the stories that witness A told the doctors as being untrue. In one instance, she had said that her husband and she were both keen to move back from the country into the town, but he responded by saying that he had no intention of moving, that that sort of thing was typical of her, and that, if they did move, she would be unhappy again in a very short time.
Dr. Alderdice points out:
It is worth noting that, in interviews with the husband, he is described as being co-operative, convincing and giving a good description of things.
Alderdice's opinion, based on Dr. McCallum's assessment, is:
the evidence of her early history of 'rejection' by her mother, who died in childbirth, and her father, who abandoned her in a more active way would be very congruent with this type of disturbed personality construction, and Dr. McCallum's use of the terms 'Mixed Psychoneurotic Reaction', and then on the second admission, 'Psychopathic Personality', are again absolutely in line with such a picture.
The material in these notes would therefore suggest a very unhappy and unstable woman with a disturbance of personality which would make her unreliable and difficult in relationships and the disorder is likely to be lifelong, though it may with certain circumstances be modified as she grows older, and with long-term phychological treatment".
I would point out that the records show that witness A refused to submit to any long-term treatment.
Dr. Alderdice concludes:
If the question is asked, 'Would such a patient be a reliable witness', I would have to give the opinion that, on the evidence of these notes, one would be advised to be extremely cautious in setting too much store by a witness with such a personality and history. Such a patient could be given to fantasies and stories that are more to do with her own wishes than with objective reality, as is pointed out a number of times in these notes".
The idea of deliberate deception or conspiracy, which the trial judge had considered, appears to have been wide


of the mark, but he would have had no reason to consider the possibility of a psychiatric factor. Nor would the judges in the 1988 appeal.
Like the trial judge, the 1988 Court of Appeal judges could have had no inkling of the contests of witness A's medical notes. The same applied to those people who sunsequently sat in the 1992 Court of Appeal. Here, Lord Chief Justice Hutton also ruled out comparison with other cases where confessions and interview notes had been tampered with when asserted:
'The case against Latimer is completely different from the case against the Guildford 4, the Birmingham 6 and Silcott, Braithwaite and Raghip. In the case against Latimer there is, for instance, the very important evidence of Witness A Which strongly confirmed his confession".
Lord Chief Justice Hutton continued:
Accordingly the position is that either Witness A's evidence and Latimer's confession are incorrect or Mrs. Dunn's evidence is incorrect. Therefore, under section 2 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 the crucial question for this court is the following one: is it safe and satisfactory to uphold the conviction of Latimer on the basis that the Witness A evidence and Latimer's confession made on the night of 2nd/3rd December are correct and Mrs. Dunn's evidence is incorrect?… We are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Dunn's evidence that the gunman was not Latimer and that the gunman was much smaller in height than Latimer is incorrect and that, in truth, Latimer was the gunman.
However, Latimer's confession, like those of Allen, Bell and Hegan, has been wholly devalued because of the extent to which it has been rewritten and altered by the police, so the direct comparison falls between the evidence of Elaine Faulkner, who went to the police within minutes, and that of witness A, who did so 24 days later.
Witness A, who knew Neil Latimer less well than Elaine Faulkner, had her evidence accepted that Latimer was wearing glasses and a tartan cap, although she had allegedly viewed him from a considerably greater distance than had Elaine Dunn, who had been within inches of the gunman.
I have run out of time, but I argue that there should be a referral, again, of Neil Latimer's case to the Court of Appeal. I draw attention to the fact that well over 200 right hon. and hon. Members from every party in the House feel strongly enough about this apparent injustice to have signed early-day motion 525. I have personally spent too long as a soldier and a politician opposing terrorism to have devoted the past five years of my life to trying to obtain freedom for Neil Latimer without being convinced that he is the victim of a gross injustice.
The reality is that, in this case, confessions were extracted in unreasonable circumstances, as was shown when Private Warton was found not guilty and discharged during the original trial. Notes and confessions were tampered with, as was shown when Allen, Bell and Hegan won their appeals. There has never been one iota of forensic evidence produced to link any of the UDR Four with the murder, and there is now serious doubt about the reliability of witness A's evidence.
The latter, together with what has gone before and the way in which it conflicts with evidence given by others, must make us ask whether, if the death penalty still existed, we would send Neil Latimer to the gallows on the basis of the evidence given by witness A. If the answer is no, surely he should be freed and the necessary referral made to the Court of Appeal without any further delay.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has campaigned assiduously on behalf of Mr. Neil Latimer, and I welcome his success in securing this Adjournment debate.
I shall explain at the outset my powers to refer a case to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland. They are the same as those available to the Home Secretary in England. I emphasise that the judgment about guilt or innocence in a criminal case has to be entirely a matter for the courts, and that Ministers cannot substitute their own assessments of the evidence in a case for that of the courts.
However, I am always ready to consider representations about any alleged miscarriage of justice to see if there is a justification for using my power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland, if necessary for a second time. Such a reference effectively constitutes in law an appeal or, as the case may be, a further appeal, by the convicted person.
There is a criterion which, consistent with my predecessors, I would normally expect to be fulfilled before I would use this power. It is that there is some new evidence, or other consideration of substance, which has not previously been brought before the court by the defendant and which now appears to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.
I remind the House that Mr. Latimer's case has already been before the courts on three occasions. The first two were the trial of the four UDR soldiers, of which he was one, and the appeal to which they had an automatic right. In 1991, after very careful consideration of representations made to him, and the production of new evidence, my predecessor referred the cases of the UDR Four back to the Court of Appeal.
The new evidence had been produced as a result of electronic document analysis—known as ESDA—carried out on the police interview notes relating to the four men. The tests showed that some of the police interview notes had been rewritten, and that those parts of the notes had not been made at the time of the interviews, as had been claimed at the trial.
In a very fully argued written judgment, delivered on 29 July 1992, the Court of Appeal unanimously quashed the convictions of Winston Allen, Noel Bell and James Hegan on the grounds that they were thereby rendered unsafe and unsatisfactory. However, the court was unanimously satisfied on separate evidence, including his admitted confession statements, as to Neil Latimer's guilt, and that his convictions were safe and satisfactory.
The Court of Appeal drew attention to the fact that, in giving evidence at the trial, Mr. Latimer accepted the accuracy of the police evidence as to his statements of admission. The Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland, in the judgment on behalf of the whole court, said:
We are satisfied that the ESDA findings in relation to the interview notes of Latimer do not create a doubt as to the correctness of his convictions because of his own evidence at the trial as to what happened in the interviews and as to what he said in the interviews, it is clear that on the night of 2nd–3rd December 1983 he confessed to murdering Mr. Carroll. We are further satisfied that those confessions were true and were the confessions of a guilty man and not of an innocent man who, by improper police conduct, was pressed into confessing to a murder which he had not committed.
The judgment of the court continued:


No one reading the full transcript of the evidence of Latimer at the trial, and reading that transcript in an impartial way and with common sense, can doubt that he was a guilty man who, from a very early stage in the interviews, realised that, by reason of the information which Witness 'A' had given, the pohce had a case against him that he was involved in the murder of Carroll, and who in the second interview on the day of his arrest said that things looked bad for him, and in the third interview told the police that he had shot Carroll, but tried for a period through a number of interviews to protect the other soldiers involved with him. But eventually, after the police had taken a further statement from Witness 'A' on 2nd December, in which she confirmed that she had seen the mock arrest of Latimer in Lonsdale Street and him getting into the landrover, and the police had told him of this statement from Witness 'A', Latimer on 2nd December made a full and truthful confession of what had happened and of his part in it.
The Court of Appeal was clearly satisfied that Mr. Latimer's written statement made in December 1983 was true in describing his part in the murder plan and how he shot Mr. Carroll, and that it was admissible in evidence against him. That part of the statement that described the parts played by Messrs Allen, Bell and Hegan was not admissible in evidence against them, and as a matter of law the court was not entitled to have any regard to that statement in considering the Crown case against them. The Court of Appeal drew a clear distinction between the total weight of evidence against Mr. Latimer on the one hand and Messrs Allen, Bell and Hegan on the other.
The involvement in the case of the woman known as witness A has been closely scrutinised, and indeed is the focus of the booklet "Witness for the Prosecution" prepared by the hon. Gentleman, to which he has referred in his speech tonight. While witness A did not see the murder being carried out, the gunman was observed by another witness, Mrs. Dunne, who gave the police a description of his appearance and clothing.
Witness A told the police that, shortly before the shooting, she had seen a man, whom she knew to be Mr. Latimer, dressed in clothing that resembled the description of that worn by the gunman. She was cross-examined on the basis not that she was mistaken but that she had concocted her story.
It is true that the witness Mrs. Dunne, who saw the gunman, also knew Mr. Latimer and said that he was not the gunman. It is clear from the detailed written judgments of the court of trial and the Court of Appeal that the conflict between that woman's evidence and that of witness A was considered most thoroughly by the courts. In that context, the Lord Chief Justice said the following:
Witness A's evidence, if it is true, establishes that a few minutes before the shooting of Mr. Carroll, Latimer, dressed in civilian clothes, was behaving with members of a UDR patrol in a most unusual manner. Moreover, according to Witness A's evidence, Latimer was wearing a tartan cap and gold-rimmed glasses, and, according to Mrs. Dunne's evidence, the gunman who shot Mr. Carroll a few minutes after Witness A had seen Latimer in Lonsdale street was wearing a check or tartan cap and gold-rimmed glasses. After his arrest Latimer, on the night of 2nd-3rd December made a full confession confirming Witness A's account of what he had done in Lonsdale street and going on to describe how, after he had got into the landrover in Lonsdale Street, dressed in civilian clothes and wearing a cap and glasses, he had gone on to shoot Mr. Carroll. However, Mrs. Dunne stated in her evidence that the gunman who shot Mr. Carroll was definitely not Latimer and that the gunman was only 5 foot 1 inch or 5 foot 2 inches in height and was smaller than her, whereas it is the fact that Latimer is 5 feet 10 inches in height.
The judgment continues with a passage that the hon. Gentleman has just cited, so I need not repeat it. I pick the quotation up at the point at which he stopped:

We are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Dunne's evidence that the gunman was not Latimer, and that the gunman was much smaller in height than Latimer, is incorrect and that, in truth, Latimer was the gunman. We are so satisfied because, for the reasons we have already stated at length, it is clear that Witness A's evidence of seeing Latimer dressed in civilian clothes getting into a landrover in Lonsdale street was true. The arguments that her evidence as to what she saw in Lonsdale street is true and is not a wicked concoction are, in our opinion, unanswerable. In addition, for the reasons we have stated, we are satisfied that Latimer's confession given verbally and in writing on the night of 2nd-3rd December 1983 was not an untrue confession made by a man pressed into making it by improper pressure from the police and by a desire on his part to get away from Castlereagh police office. It is clear that his confession was a truthful confession made by a man who realised the game was up.
That concludes this passage from the judgment.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State, before leaving that point, admit that four other accused, including Warton, made confessions clearly admitting their part in the killing, and that the trial judge dismissed the case against Warton when he discovered that the accused had been so emotionally pressurised that he was encouraged to write his last will and testament? In the wake of all this, Warton cried with emotion because he thought that he would never get out of prison in his parents' lifetime, and he was persuaded to sign a confession.
Will the Secretary of State concede that such pressure on people who are used to obeying those in authority—none more so than soldiers—is totally intolerable, and negates any value that a confession might have?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is not a question of conceding. It is not for me to defend or uphold the judgment of the court; it is for me to try to apply the criterion that has been applied by my predecessors.
As to the hon. Gentleman's factual point about confessions made by the other defendants, what has been said is broadly true, and I certainly do not dispute it tonight. As I have indicated, I have to consider whether there is something new by way of evidence—evidence that has not previously been before the court. I remind the House that this has already been referred to the Court of Appeal, where each of the points already alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was made by counsel on behalf of Mr. Latimer and was rejected by the court.
My reason for setting the matter out in such detail so far is that I think it important that the House should hear the basis on which the trial judge initially convicted Mr. Latimer, among the others, and the basis upon which the Court of Appeal, while allowing the appeals of the other three, considered it safe and satisfactory to uphold the conviction of Mr. Latimer. It is not for me to substitute my judgment for that of the Court of Appeal, but it is for me to explain at this juncture how it is that the Court of Appeal argued that conclusion.
The hon. Gentleman will know that I carefully considered further representations made to me last year, about which I wrote to him on 11 January this year. The very proper purpose of the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight has been to assert that fresh material is now available which calls for a yet further reference to be made.
That material comprises what are claimed in his booklet "Witness for the Prosecution" to be medical notes relating to witness A in 1964 and 1965—it has to be said, some 18 years before the events with which the case is concerned


—and a professional opinion on their significance obtained by a psychotherapist who, as the hon. Gentleman immediately made clear, had not examined witness A.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that careful consideration is being given, as it should be, to the totality of the material to which he referred and to the points that he made in his booklet, which he supplemented in his speech tonight. He will understand that the matter has to be examined in the context of the constraints upon my power

to refer a case to the Court of Appeal, which I have already described this evening. He will know that I cannot yet express a concluded view.
However, the hon. Gentleman has my assurance, and I am glad to give it, that the matter is being carefully considered and will be considered with the proper care that it requires and deserves, as will be the points that the hon. Gentleman has made tonight. I undertake to communicate with the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible as to the result.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve midnight.